Steve Hudson is Chair of the firm's Litigation Department. Mr. Hudson concentrates his practice in the areas of securities, franchise, and complex commercial litigation. His securities litigation experience includes participation in the defense of class actions in New York, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama.
He has extensive experience with internal corporate investigations and representing special committees of publicly traded companies, including representing a special committees of a Workers Compensation insurance carrier in investigating potential claims against a former CEO, representing a bankruptcy examiner in identifying and evaluating potential claims against third parties arising out a failed LBO, and representing a special committee in deciding whether to terminate a consulting contract between a corporation and its retired founder.
During law school, Mr. Hudson received six American Jurisprudence Awards and was ranked second in a class of 244.
Mr. Hudson was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® in 2018 and the five years immediately preceding for Commercial Litigation, Banking and Finance Litigation, and Securities Litigation Law. He was recognized in 2018 and the five years immediately preceding as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in the area of Business Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. Mr. Hudson was named to Georgia Trend's 2015 "Legal Elite" list for General Practice/Trial Law. Mr. Hudson is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of an outdoor advertising company in litigation brought by a shareholder who had sold his business to the company in exchange for cash and company stock. He later filed a claim seeking damages under the federal and state securities laws and under a common law theory, claiming that the company had misled him about its current condition and its prospects when it had acquired his company. We moved to compel arbitration of the shareholder's claims pursuant to an arbitration provision in the operating agreement that the shareholder signed. That motion was granted, and the parties participated in a week long arbitration before a three person arbitration panel in Boston. The arbitration panel rejected all of the shareholder's claims and awarded the company some of its expenses in defending against the claims. The court later confirmed the arbitration award.
The firm served as lead counsel for a Georgia-based software developer in a factually complex theft of trade secrets case involving the copying and misappropriation of source code files relating to the e-mail attachment viewing technology used in handheld devices. Suit was filed on behalf of software developer in October 2003, alleging claims against competitors, and former executives of competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was defeated, and developer successfully moved to compel production of defendants’ source code pertaining to the technology in question, and defeated defendants' omnibus motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The case settled for a confidential amount shortly before a three-week trial was scheduled to begin.
Represented an independent committee of the board of directors of a large private company, that was formed to investigate and to decide what to do in response to a comprehensive, detailed demand by a group of minority shareholders. Representing the independent committee, the firm conducted an investigation and assisted in the preparation of a lengthy report, which was presented to and adopted by the board of directors.
Represented PFM Capital Management, Inc. and its principals in a lawsuit filed in Georgia state court by a dissatisfied advisee who claimed that she had lost nearly $1 million in investments because of the defendants' alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duties in failing to sell a large block of stock. We were successful in having the trial court dismiss the entire case on the grounds that the applicable statutes of limitations had already run before the complaint was filed. On appeal, most of the dismissal was affirmed. Thereafter, the case settled for a nominal amount. Hamburger v. PFM Capital Mgmt., Inc., et al., 286 Ga. App. 382, 649 S.E.2d 779 (2007).
Represented a health care related company in litigation with a former marketing and sales consultant, who was also a minority shareholder. The terminated employee refused to stop their marketing efforts, developed web sites and continued to use the company's trademark and logo. The company sued for trademark infringement and for violation of the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The consultant counterclaimed for commissions and for breach of contract. The firm discovered that the consultant had intercepted an unknown number of e-mails between the company and its outside counsel, and moved for sanctions. The district court struck the consultant's answer and counterclaim and entered a default judgment. The district court also awarded the company all of its attorneys' fees. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ruling in a published opinion.
Represented a health care services company in wide-ranging disputes and litigation with a minority member who asserted a variety of breach of fiduciary duty claims against the company and the majority members. Our client asserted a counterclaim against the plaintiff in the Georgia case for indemnification based on the minority member joining with a third party to sue the company.
Represented the creditors' committee and then plan trustee for Vesta Insurance Group Inc. in connection with its liquidation. The firm assisted with reaching a complex multimillion dollar claim settlement with the Texas Insurance Commissioner. The plan trustee obtained a multimillion dollar settlement of a lawsuit handled by the firm against former officers for breach of fiduciary duties. In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 06-02517 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. filed July 18, 2006).
Insights View All
University of South Carolina, J.D. (1984) Order of the Coif
Bob Jones University cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Robert F. Chapman
State Bar of Georgia, Member
State Bar of South Carolina, Member
South Carolina Law Review, Associate Editor-in-Chief
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.