David Bass

Partner / LOS ANGELES,

Area of Specialization

  • Litigation and Trial

Bar Admissions

  • California

Education

  • University of Southern California Law, 1984
  • University of California, Berkeley, 1981

David Bass

Partner / LOS ANGELES

David Bass is a Los Angeles native who has practiced law since 1984.  He is a graduate of University of California at Berkeley and the University of Southern California Law Center.  Prior to joining Gerard Fox Law, Mr. Bass was the senior member of a boutique litigation firm and a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman. 

Mr. Bass has extensive trial, arbitration, and mediation experience in complex business litigation matters.  Mr. Bass represents private equity funds, individual investors, and numerous limited liability companies in disputes arising from acquisitions of investment businesses and real estate developments.  This work has included substantial trials and arbitrations addressing breaches of fiduciary duties, misuse of corporate assets, accounting disputes, and other issues concerning control and operation of business entities.  Mr. Bass regularly conducts pre-litigation corporate investigations.  He participates as counsel at corporate board meetings and limited liability member meetings.  Mr. Bass also represents parties before California State Commissions.  Mr. Bass handles cases throughout California, Arizona, Hawaii and New York.

Mr. Bass is the Vice President and member of the board of directors of Hollywood Media District Business Improvement Board and the chairman of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee for that district.  He is also a member of the board of directors of the Hollywood Central Park (a planned large scale development of an elevated park over the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles).

Representative matters and trials: 

  • Alchemy v. Carlsberg, et al. Represented through trial disputes under a long term commercial lease for a large “data center.”  The trial addressed wide ranging views on lease interpretation and expert testimony on calculations for long term use of industrial electricity.  After a bench trial (conducted over 10 months), the court ruled entirely in favor Mr. Bass’ client and awarded prevailing attorneys’ fees. 
  • RCP v. Geary, et al. Represented a large real estate partnership in an action seeking the recovery of assets unlawfully transferred by co-general partner.  Conducted a complete forensic accounting of years of operations of real estate projects managed by Defendants to prepare the action.  The investigation served as the basis for claims.  Obtained control of all assets and regained flow of income to the partnership.  Achieved a settlement in the amount of $23 million.
  • Wizard v. Cuicci, et al. Lead counsel for the largest shareholder in a California licensed gaming business in several related matters filed in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern Counties.  Conducted corporate investigation concerning mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty.  Achieved a favorable buyout through a lengthy negotiation and business evaluation.  Represented the gaming entity in presentations and licensing hearings before the California Gambling Control Commission.
  • Chang v. Tropics, et al. Represented a majority investor in four California real estate investment limited partnerships.  Defended breach of fiduciary duty and breach on investment contract claims.  Achieved a complete defense and dismissal of action through summary adjudication.  
  • Koko Marina Holdings v. UCM, et al. Represented a limited liability company in several related actions concerning the control, management, and ownership of a commercial real estate project in Honolulu.  Achieved summary adjudication order on governance, ownership, and management issues.  Managed deposition and document discovery in several states in two related actions.  Applied rulings in Hawaii Circuit Court to obtain writ of mandate in Sacramento County directing the Secretary of State to modify corporate records.  Obtained two anti-SLAPP judgments (with accompanying fee awards) in Sacramento.  Conducted member and manager meetings regarding financing and management of entity.  Negotiated re-financing of commercial center and conversion to tenants in common structure.
  • Fidelity v. Friedman, et al. After a preliminary injunction was entered and contempt orders were issued against Defendants, hired to replace prior counsel and assumed the role of lead litigation and trial counsel for the Defendants in a RICO and fraudulent conveyance action.  Issues at trial concerned claims that Defendants concealed over $30 million in personal assets through the use of international trusts as part of an “asset protection” scheme.  Obtained a jury verdict in favor of all Defendants on all claims after two weeks of trial.  Also prevailed on separate claim adjudicated by the Court (to invalidate spendthrift provisions in trust agreements).
  • Rudamac v. Consolidated Graphics, et al. Represented a plaintiff printing company in an action seeking damages arising from the use of confidential business information transferred to a competing printing company.  After six weeks of trial, prevailed against all defendants on all causes of action.  Obtained jury verdict of $13.8 million, including punitive damages.  Also obtained an award of $3 million of attorneys’ fees and $700,000 in costs, for a total judgment of $17.5 million.
  • Ancora v. Unique Investment Corporation. Represented a private equity firm in successful defense of fraud and recession claims arising from the sale of a mail sort business; claimant sought over $25 million in an arbitration conducted before panel of three arbitrators.  Issues presented concerned valuation methods for acquisition of business, sufficiency of financial disclosures, and scope of indemnity for related criminal prosecution.
  • Aissa v. Payton, et al. Successfully defended NBA athletes in a three month jury trial.  Trial concerned claims of investment fraud arising from NBA themed restaurant concept.  Achieved complete defense verdict on all causes of action.  (Other affiliated defendants represented by other defense counsel were held liable for fraud and punitive damages.) 

Questions? Contact Us

Is there a specific matter you'd like to discuss with one of our attorneys? Do you have questions about our practice? Send us a message and we will get back to you shortly.
CONTACT US