David Panzer

Partner

David’s practices focuses on litigation and government enforcement. With extensive experience as both in-house and outside counsel, he brings a unique perspective not only to matters to be tried in court but also to the business of law.

Before joining Ward & Berry, David led the Government Contracts Group based in the Washington, DC office of midsize firm.  David assembled a team of professionals, with deep industry experience, who designed practical business-oriented solutions for their clients’ legal problems.

David previously served as the Deputy General Counsel for a multi-billion dollar government services contractor that operates around the world. In that role, he managed the day-to-day operations of the Legal Department and was responsible for serving as both the chief advisor on all government contracts issues and the lawyer responsible for virtually all significant litigation, investigations, bid protests, Claims and REAs. As a result, he was responsible for negotiating and managing the vast majority of the legal budget and managing the relationships with most of the law firms engaged by the company.  During the time that the company was an SEC public filer, David served as the legal representative on the disclosure committee. As an essential advisor to the C-Suite, he was asked to project-manage the diligence process that led to a successful sale of the company.

Before his seven-year stint as in-house counsel, David spent more than a dozen years at one of the largest law firms in the country (five of which as a partner), where he had a wide-ranging litigation practice.


 

GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

  • Obtained Deferred Prosecution Agreement related to alleged PPP loan fraud (2022).

FALSE CLAIMS ACT LITIGATION

  • Successfully defended and resolved multiple False Claims Act matters without paying any money to the government or relators. S. ex rel. Hutchins v. DynCorp Int’l, Civil Action No. 15-355 (RMC) (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2019); U.S. ex rel. Greer v. DynCorp Int’l, Civil Action No. 13-00326 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2017); U.S. ex rel. Waterman v. DynCorp Int’l, Civil Action No. 14-00480-JLR (W.D. Wash. October 2015); U.S. ex rel. Hollis v. DynCorp Int’l, Civil Action No. 13-698 (BBL/TJL) (E.D.Va. Dec. 10, 2014).
  • Established favorable standard for defendant regarding alleged violations of the False Claims Act based on allegedly unreasonable charges. U.S. v. DynCorp Int’l, 282 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2017).
  • Successfully settled False Claim Act matter as counsel to relator.

PRIME-SUB DISPUTES

  • Successfully obtained recovery of unpaid invoices for subcontractor, and resolved related qui tam litigation and inquiries from DOJ, DOD IG and the Contracting Officer. Northrop Grumman Tech. Servs., Inc. v. DynCorp Int’l, 865 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2017).
  • Successfully obtained recovery of unpaid invoices for subcontractor. DynCorp Int’l v. MD Helicopters, Inc., 2019 WL 277359 (N.D. Ala. 2019).
  • Successfully defended prime contractor against five simultaneous subcontractor lawsuits and arbitrations relating to construction in Afghanistan. Projects Mgmt. Co. v. DynCorp Int’l, 584 Fed.Appx. 121 (4th Cir. 2014); Tamimi Global Co., Ltd. v. DynCorp Int’l, 2014 WL 3767061 (E.D.Va. July 30, 2014); Alpha Omega Services v. DynCorp Int’l, 2014 WL 1401800 (E.D.Va. Apr. 9, 2014).
  • Successfully resolved dispute on behalf of prime contractor regarding whether subcontract was a requirements contract and/or whether it incorporated the parties’ teaming agreement. Stevens Aviation, Inc. v. DynCorp Int’l, 407 S.C. 407 (2014).

WRONGFUL TERMINATION CLAIMS

  • Successfully defended wrongful termination of lease claim brought by vendor against prime contractor. C3PO Int’l, Ltd. v. DynCorp Int’l, 663 Fed.Appx. 311 (5th Cir. 2016).
  • Successfully resolved ICC arbitration on behalf of prime contractor involving disputed termination of a contract to construct an airport, including related insurance coverage action.
  • Set aside municipality’s default termination of construction contract against prime contractor. MCI Constr., LLC v. City of Greensboro, 610 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 2010); 125 Fed.Appx. 471 (4th Cir. 2005) (establishing standard for review of government official’s decision with respect to government’s termination of its prime contractor).

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES

  • Obtained injunction on behalf of prime contractor against United States related to the disclosure of proprietary data to follow-on contractor. DynCorp Int’lv. U.S. Dep’t of State, Civil Action No. 18-1125-DLF (D.D.C. June 4, 2018).
  • Overturned dismissal of Trade Secrets claim against competitor, related to bid protest. DynCorp Int’l v. AAR Airlift Group, Inc., 664 Fed.Appx. 844 (11th Cir. 2016).

BID PROTESTS

  • Protest of cybersecurity contract sustained based on Agency’s reliance on unstated evaluation criteria. Eccalon, B-420291.1, .2 (Jan. 24, 2022).
  • Handled numerous protests involving billions of dollars on behalf of major defense contractor.

OTHER DISPUTES WITH THE GOVERNMENT

  • Obtained reformation damages based on mutual mistake in precedent setting case. Appeal of DynCorp Int’l Under Contract No. FA8617-12-C-6208, ACBCA No. 61274 (Aug. 1, 2019).
  • Obtained dismissal of retaliatory claims asserted by the Government. Appeal of DynCorp Int’l Under Contract No. FA8617-12-C-6208, ASBCA No. 61735 (Sept. 28, 2018).
  • Management Servs. LLC v. Department of the Army, 842 F.Supp.2d 859 (E.D.Va. 2012).
  • Raher v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011 WL 4832574 (D. Or. Oct. 12, 2011) (successfully defended sanctions motion in FOIA action).
  • U.S. v. Comstock, No. 08-1224 (drafted Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of Cato Institute regarding the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause).
  • The Cherokee Nation of OK v. U.S., 73 Fed.Cl. 467 (2006); 69 Fed. Cl. 148 (2005).
  • Works Council v. U.S. Dept. of the Air Force, 77 Fed.Appx. 176 (4th Cir. 2003).
  • MCI Const., LLC v. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., 213 F.R.D. 268 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (obtaining communications between city manager and outside counsel under state public records act); 211 F.R.D. 290 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

  • As in-house counsel, project managed the due diligence process for the successful sale of a major defense contractor.
  • Successfully represented electrical subcontractor, Board and Majority Shareholder against numerous claims brought by Minority Shareholder. Mona v. Mona Elec. Group, Inc., 176 Md.App. 672 (2007).

INSURANCE COVERAGE

  • As in-house counsel, successfully resolved numerous insurance coverage disputes involving all lines of insurance, including three related coverage actions involving a 3000 plaintiff mass tort action arising from government contractor’s aerial spraying operations under Plan Colombia. Arias v. DynCorp, 752 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
  • Colony Ins. Co. v. Danly, Inc., 755 F.Supp.2d 219 (D. Me. 2010) (defeating excess carrier’s defenses to Reach-and-Apply action); 270 F.R.D. 36 (D. Me. 2010) (obtaining discovery of internal emails from insurance defense counsel).
  • Smith v. Newport News Shipbuilding Health Plan, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 637 (E.D.Va. 2001).

CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL INJURY

  • Successfully obtained insurance coverage to resolve various personal injury claims, including catastrophic brain injury from car accident and paralysis from helicopter crash.
  • Represented family of 6 year old child who drowned in a public pool. Ballard v. District of Columbia, 813 F.Supp.34 (D.D.C. 2011) (successfully obtained remand of personal injury and § 1983 action against the District).
  • Obtained record-setting recovery for family of 9 year old boy who was shot in the eye with an arrow while attending summer camp.
  • Klaas v. Alexandria Hosp., VWC File No. 201-23-34 (Oct. 26, 2001) (defended benefits award).

ARBITRATION RELATED LITIGATION

  • UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 217 Md. App. 500 (2014) (over-turning jury verdict); 197 Md. App. 69 (2011) (reversing order compelling arbitration). American Bank Holdings, Inc. v. Kavanagh, 436 Md. 457 (2013) (obtained certiorari to challenge Maryland’s unique interpretation of the Uniform Arbitration Act).
  • Concesionaria Dominicana de Autopistas y Carreteras, S.A. v. Dominican State, 926 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) (awarded attorney’s fees for confirmation of arbitral award); 2012 WL 6632812 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2012) (confirming arbitral award).
  • Glaser v. Legg, 928 F.Supp.2d 236 (D.D.C. 2013) (confirming arbitration award and rejecting untimely vacatur arguments raised in opposition to petition to confirm).
  • Aneke v. American Exp. Travel Related Servs., 841 F.Supp.2d 368 (D.D.C. 2012) (granting motion to compel arbitration and stay putative class action).
  • Stein v. American Exp. Travel Related Servs., 813 F.Supp.2d 69 (D.D.C. 2011).
  • Lang v. Levi, 198 Md.App. 154 (2009) (appeal involving matter of first impression regarding Uniform Notice of Foreign Laws Act and Uniform Arbitration Act).
  • Mandl v. Bailey, 159 Md.App. 64 (2004).

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

  • Shapiro v. American Bank, 2013 WL 6157266 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2013) (judgment on the pleadings of common law wrongful discharge claims).
  • Hallak v. L3 Comm. Corp., 490 Fed.Appx. 2 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming pre-discovery dismissal of mass action under FLSA).
  • Hill v. Amtec, Inc., 2009 WL 5030704 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2009) (denying reconsideration of dismissal of Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law claims).

CONSUMER LITIGATION

  • Youkelsone v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 909 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (pre-discovery dismissal).
  • Dubois v. Washington Mut. Bank, 492 Fed.Appx. 117 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (affirming pre-discovery dismissal with prejudice of multi-count complaint). Jarvis v. FedEx Office and Print Servs., Inc., 442 Fed.Appx. 71 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirming summary judgment); 334 Fed.Appx. 571 (4th Cir. 2009) (affirming pre-discovery dismissal).
  • Thomas v. Early Warning Servs., LLC, 2012 WL 37396 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2012) (granting summary judgment); 2010 WL 3946399 (D. Md. Oct. 7, 2010) (granting motion to dismiss in part).
  • Rossmann v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 772 F.Supp.2d 169 (D.D.C. 2011) (pre-discovery dismissal).
  • Suss v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2733097 (D. Md. July 9, 2010) (obtaining summary judgment and attorney’s fees).
  • Ponder v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 666 F.Supp.2d 45 (D.D.C. 2009) (pre-discovery dismissal).
  • Sharp v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 577 F.Supp.2d 767 (D. Md. 2008) (granting motion to dismiss ADA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
  • Gallardo v. FedEx Kinko’s Office & Print Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 2143011 (D. Md. May 12, 2008) (pre-discovery dismissal).
  • Jones v. EMC Mortg. Co., Inc., 251 Fed.Appx. 819 (4th Cir. 2007) (affirming pre-discovery dismissal with prejudice).

OTHER BUSINESS DISPUTES

  • Dynacorp Ltd. v. Aramtel Ltd., 208 Md.App. 403 (2012).
  • Romeril Appraisal Group v. Stevens Real Estate, Inc., 18 Fed.Appx. 134 (4th Cir. 2001) (affirming pre-discovery dismissal with prejudice).

PRESENTATIONS & PUBLICATIONS

  • Moderator, “Privacy, Security, and Citizen Convenience,” Think Innovate 2022 Conference (October 20, 2022)
  • Presenter, Maritime and Control Systems Cybersecurity Conference, “Hack the Port” (March 2022)
  • Moderator, “GovCon M&A Insights and Outlook in 2022: The Increasing Role of Cybersecurity Diligence,” Cybersecurity Association of Maryland & Whiteford Panel (February 25, 2022)
  • Presenter, “Federal Contractors: New COVID-19 Rules,” Frederick County Society for Human Resources Management (November 16, 2021)
  • Moderator, The US Cyberspace Solarium Commission Panel on the Impact of the Cyber Education Report (June 23, 2021)
  • Panelist, 30th Annual Hollingsworth LLP Seminar on Complex Litigation Defense: Volume Control (May 17, 2018)
  • Panelist, Global Issues Forum: How to Survive the Era of the Digital Border Search – Practical Issues Surrounding Law Enforcement Access to Phones, Laptops and Tablets (September 19, 2017), quoted in Law360 (September 19, 2017)
  • Webinar Panelist, Predictive Coding: How to Cut Through the ‘Hype’ and Determine Whether It’s Right for Your Review (April 23, 2014)
  • Panelist, Document Retention and Destruction (November 20, 2013)
  • Panelist, “The Cross-Border Quandary: Facilitating e-Discovery While Protecting Data Privacy,” (July 31, 2013)
  • Panelist, “Global Data Protection: Part 1 – The U.S., U.K. and Europe” (July 30, 2013)
  • Quoted, “Few e-discovery costs are taxable for prevailing parties,” Inside Counsel, July 2013
  • Making Copies! The Fourth Circuit Defines Taxable Costs Associated With eDiscovery (May 3, 2013)
  • Will a Maryland Court Enforce an Arbitration Clause in a ‘Click-Wrap’ Agreement? (April 30, 2013), reprinted in Maryland Bar Bulletin (July 2013)
  • Cheek Survives Concepcion: What Broker-Dealers Need To Know About Enforcing Arbitration Agreements In Maryland (April 16, 2013)
  • Can Government Contractors Rely On Their Mandatory ADR Programs? (April 8, 2013)
  • Course Planner and Faculty Member, “Arbitration Litigation Seminar,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute, 2010