PRACTICE AREAS

Banking, Consumer and Financial Services Litigation

Business Litigation

Class Actions

Corporate Directors & Officers Liability Litigation

Mark A. Olthoff chairs the firm’s Banking, Consumer and Financial Services Litigation practice. His trial practice involves business and commercial disputes in state and federal courts, arbitrations and mediations. Mr. Olthoff has defended and prosecuted matters pending in California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri and Texas. Substantive cases have included state and federal consumer protection acts, banking acts, securities laws, state and federal antitrust laws, as well as business tort law actions, professional liability and Uniform Commercial Code matters. He has also prosecuted and defended personal injury and wrongful death actions involving negligence and products liability claims.

Mr. Olthoff has also spoken on numerous topics related to trial practice, including class actions, discovery, electronic discovery, motion strategy, opening statements, interference with contractual relations and damages.

DISTINCTIONS

Mr. Olthoff has also spoken on numerous topics related to trial practice, including class actions, discovery, electronic discovery, motion strategy, opening statements, interference with contractual relations and damages.

Missouri/Kansas Super Lawyer (2005-2008)

Mr. Olthoff was selected for inclusion in Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers 2008 for Business Litigation

Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2008

COMMUNITY AND BAR INVOLVEMENT

American Bar Association

The Missouri Bar

Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers

Amicus Committee Co-Chair (2003-04)

Missouri Bankers Association

Bank Counsel Section

Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association

Business Torts Committee Chair (2000)

Missouri Supreme Court, Region IV

Disciplinary Committee

NOTABLE EXPERIENCE

Practiced in United States District Courts in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Kansas and Missouri.

Representative business and commercial cases include:

Successfully defended a large financial institution and brokerage house when a medical supply firm sued alleging antitrust claims and state law causes of action. Plaintiff asserted monopolization and restraint of trade, trade secret act violations, misrepresentation, tortious interference and breach of contract against various corporations and individuals. All claims dismissed. Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., 2003 WL 21479192 (D. Kan. 2003), aff’d., 112 Fed. Appx. 730 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished); other decisions: 508 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 2007); 419 F.Supp.2d 1316 (D. Kan. 2006); 2005 WL 2122675 (D. Kan. 2005); Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, 2008 WL 4642618 (D. Kan., Oct. 16, 2008); Lipari, 2008 WL 4190784; Lipari, 2008 WL 2875373; Lipari, 2007 WL 1063178 (W. D. Mo., Apr. 4, 2007).

Successfully defended remaining shareholders in a claim brought by a former co-owner. Plaintiff alleged claims that defendants breached employment and shareholder agreements. Judgment entered for defendant. Dorsch v. Family Medicine, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005).

Litigation involving UCC Article 9 claims, breach of contracts and various business torts on behalf of a large automobile dealer finance company. Representing client in its collection and enforcement litigation as well as suits filed against it.

Prosecuted litigation involving breach of contract and UCC warranty claims. Plaintiff demanded remainder of payment due while defendant claimed defect in the product. Case settled in mediation. La Calhène, Inc. v. Roche Vitamins, Case No. C6 10 1124 (D. Ct. Chisago County, Minnesota).

Defended large transportation corporations from issues of piercing corporate veil in significant personal injury and wrongful death claims.

Defended a supplier of business machine monitoring devices in litigation brought by a marketing representative. Plaintiff alleged claims of wrongful interference, fraud and breach of contract. Summary judgment for defendants granted when plaintiff’s expert excluded from testifying as to damages. MeterLogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, L.L.C., et al., 368 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2004); related decisions: 126 F. Supp.2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2000); 185 F. Supp.2d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

Defended purchaser of a business machine monitoring devices and others against seller, who alleged claims of fraud, tortious interference, breach of contract and piercing the corporate veil. Verdict for plaintiff on fraud claim was reversed on appeal, vacated and judgment entered for defendants. MProve, Inc. v. KLT Inc., et al., 135 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004).

Prosecuted litigation on behalf of manufacturer of meat processing equipment against purchaser and parent company alleging breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil and tortious interference. Case settled. Marel, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., Case No. 04CV02321 (D. Ct. Johnson County, Kansas).

Litigation brought by manufacturing concerning client against supplier for alleged trade secret violations. Case settled after suit filed. American Crane & Tractor Parts v. Regal Corp., Case No. 99 CV 2113 GTV (D. Kan.).

Litigation brought by foodservice cooperative against former member alleging trade secret violations. Allied Buying Corp. v. QualServ Corp., Case No. CV104-0011100-CC (Cir. Ct. Clay County, Missouri).

Defended state and federal securities act and negligence claims against investment representative. Reported decisions: Munjak v. Signator Investors, Inc., et al., 316 F.Supp.2d 1086 (D. Kan. 2004); Jackson v. John Hancock Fin. Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 2293603 (D. Kan. 2005).

Litigation brought by telecommunications consulting firm against telecommunications provider alleging breach of contract. Case settled. The Management Network Group, Inc. v. WilTel Communications, LLC, Case No. 04CV01626 (D. Ct. Johnson County, Kansas).

Claims involving personal injuries or death involving farm equipment, motor vehicles, recreation equipment, and other products.

Significant class actions include:

Represented a major homeowner insurance company that was sued by plaintiffs alleging discrimination and violations of federal housing acts and regulations in redlining litigation. Plaintiffs claimed that multiple insurance companies charged rates that discriminated on the basis of race. Successfully defeated class certification. Canady v. Allstate, et al., 1997 WL 33384270 (W.D. Mo. 1997), aff’d 162 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1104 (1999); related case 282 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2002). Other reported decisions: Saunders v. Farmers, 537 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 1008); Saunders v. Farmers, 440 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2006).

Represented financial institutions and securitized trusts against plaintiffs’ claims alleging violation of federal and Missouri consumer protection and bank acts. Adkison, et al. v. FirstPlus Bank, et al., Case No. CV100 3174 CC; Couch, et al. v. SMC Lending, Inc., et al., Case No. CV100 4332 CC; Beaver, et al. v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association, et al., Case No. 03CV 213643; Hall, et al. v. American West Finance, et al., Case No. 01 CV 218553 01; Baker, et al. v. Century Fin. Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV100 4294 CC; Scherich v. Premier Associates Mortgage Co., et al., Case No. 01 CV 201263; Avila v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia, et al., Case No. 01 CV 215815; Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit Corp., et al., Case No. CV100 4263 CC; Schwartz, et al. v. Bann-Cor, et al., Case No. 00CV226639 01; McLean v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., Case No. 00CV228530; Thomas, et al. v. U. S. Bank, et al., Case No. 04-CV-W-6098-HFS; Washington v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 08-0459-CV-W-FJG (W.D. Mo.). Reported decisions: Adkison, 143 S.W. 3d 29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004); Avila, 143 S.W. 3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); Gilmor v. Preferred Credit Corp., 2005 WL 3478149 (W.D.Mo. 2005); Schwartz, 197 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. App. W. D. 2006).

Defended investor in partnership interests and low income housing credits when plaintiffs sued, alleging misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of state consumer protection act. Successfully compelled the litigation to arbitration and case settled. Emerson, et al. v. Dominium, et al., 248 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2001).

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

2007-2008

Ethics, Evidence and Experts (NBI)

July 2007 American Legal and Financial Network Conference

May 2006

National Bank Act Preemption in the Secondary Market

123 Bank. L.J. 401

2001

If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, You’ll End Up Somewhere Else: Applicability of Comparative Fault Principles in Purely Economic Cases

49 Drake U.L. Rev. 589

August 14, 2008

Importance of Experienced Counsel in Avoiding and/or Defending Veil-Piercing Litigation

Attorneys Dennis Palmer and Mark Olthoff have written an article about the importance of choosing an experienced attorney when dealing with protection from liability issues in avoiding and/or defending veil-piercing litigation.

1999

Business Torts Handbook

KCMBA

Mark was an editor and contributing author on piercing the corporate veil and successor liability issues. Mark contributed the update to his chapters in 2006.

Jan/Feb 1999

Splitting Up? What You Should Know

M.D. News

1995

Beyond the Form Should the Corporate Veil Be Piercd?

64 U.M.K.C. L. Rev. 311 (1995)

EDUCATION

J.D., with distinction, University of Iowa, 1988, Articles Co-Editor Journal of Corporation Law; Phi Delta Phi

B.B.A., with distinction, Iowa State University, 1985, Phi Kappa Phi

BAR ADMISSIONS

Missouri, 1988