Neal Kronley

Neal's representative experience includes the following

• Neal represented a commercial lender sued by a commercial real estate broker and a commercial lessor over claims the lender unreasonably withheld consent for a lease in a commercial building in Times Square. Neal led the case from discovery through its successful resolution on summary judgment
• Neal "second chaired" a trial in the Eastern District of New York that achieved a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the firm’s insurance company client in a case involving the application of an "insured versus insured" exclusion in an insurance policy
• Neal has been involved in internal investigations involving firm clients in various sectors and industries, and has worked to respond to SEC inquiries into various companies, including hedge fund and other financial services companies
• In a novel suit challenging the reach and constitutionality of the statute governing Puerto Rico's restructuring, Neal was part of a team that ensured the statutory stay remained in effect during a crucial stay period designed to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debts
• In another restructuring matter, Neal and the DLA team presented evidence at trial to support our client's conclusions as to the valuation of its collateral and the appropriate "cram down" interest rate for its restructured notes.  The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of our client and confirmed the client’s bankruptcy plan
• Neal was the lead associate in defending a policyholder suit against a major insurance company that was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. DLA Piper argued that the policyholder was not entitled to insurance coverage under a directors and officers' liability policy because the claims were "related" to claims made prior to the policy’s inception. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
• Neal also was part of a DLA Piper team that won a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals involving the question whether an excess insurer was obligated to provide insurance coverage due to the possibility of a policyholder's exposure to liability despite the fact that the bankrupt underlying insurance company's had not exhausted their limits of liability
• In a suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, waste and unjust enrichment by directors of a Fortune 10 company, Neal was part of a DLA Piper team that successfully defended the directors and officers on demand futility grounds before the Supreme Court of New York, New York County