PRACTICE AREAS
 • Business Litigation
 • Securities Litigation
 • Employment Litigation
 • Information Technology Litigation

CONTACT INFO
Phone: (303) 285-5544
Fax: (303) 285-5301
[email protected]

EDUCATION                                       

Stanford Law School, J.D. 1981

University of Arizona, B.A.
in economics, with highest distinction
(named outstanding graduate of 1978)

 

  

  

 

Daniel F. Wake

Shareholder

Dan Wake has specialized in business litigation and dispute resolution since 1981, with emphasis on securities, corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions, officer and director claims, financial institutions and commercial contracts in a wide variety of settings. Mr. Wake’s experience includes class action litigation, bench and jury trials in Colorado’s federal and state courts and in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, appellate litigation in several United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court, and numerous arbitration proceedings through hearing and award. He has conducted approximately twenty jury and bench trials and arbitrations.

In the area of securities and corporate governance, Dan Wake has litigated a wide variety of matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. He has defended private equity firms, hedge funds, issuers and underwriters in a number of class action securities lawsuits and derivative actions in Colorado and elsewhere, and has represented plaintiff classes of investors in Colorado and in Delaware. He has also represented financial planners and brokers in civil litigation. His securities background includes Ponzi schemes, FINRA arbitrations, and the defense of registered representatives in enforcement proceedings brought by regulatory authorities, including the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dan Wake's background in other commercial litigation includes a variety of business and corporate disputes.  His practice includes a broad spectrum of corporate contract disputes and business torts, particularly in the areas of employment and trade secret protection. He has substantial experience across the nation in disputes over multi-million dollar ERP (enterprise resource planning) software installation projects, such as Oracle and SAP implementations, and related large software contracts. Dan Wake has provided expert testimony and has counseled business entities as a non-advocate by providing independent legal counsel in conflict situations and representing special litigation committees.

Before moving to Denver in 1988, Daniel Wake worked in the Office of the General Counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he specialized in federal court appellate litigation. Before joining Sander Ingebretsen & Wake in January 2006, he was a shareholder in other Denver law firms, including most recently the firm of Horowitz, Wake and Forbes.

HONORS AND ADMISSIONS

Dan has been selected for inclusion in Colorado Super Lawyers each year from 2009-2013. He has received an AV peer review rating from Martindale Hubbell © (highest rating for legal ability and ethical standards).

Dan is admitted in Colorado (1988) and the District of Columbia (1981). He has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Tenth, Ninth, Second and District of Columbia circuits, and various United States District Courts.  He is also on FINRA Dispute Resolution's panel of public arbitrators.

SELECTED CASES

Badger Farms, Inc. v. The Western Sugar Cooperative, 11-CV-6419 (Den. Dist. 2012) - obtained partial summary judgment for member of agricultural cooperative in dispute concerning the determination of the cooperative's fixed costs.  Thereafter the case settled.

CLST Holdings, Inc. v. Red Oak Partners, LLC, 2009 WL 3320515 (N.D. Tex. 2009)lead counsel in successfully opposing plaintiff’s attempt to enjoin hedge fund shareholders from voting their shares in contest for control of publicly traded company.

Forgent Networks, Inc. v. Sandberg, 2009 WL  2927015 (W.D. Tex. 2009) - lead counsel in successfully opposing plaintiff’s attempt to obtain preliminary injunction against hedge fund shareholder in proxy contest for control of board of directors of public company.

Rhino Fund, LLLP v. Hutchins, 215 P.3d 1186 (Colo. App. 2008) - lead trial counsel in obtaining judgment on claims for conversion and civil theft, including an award of treble damages.

Doubleclick Inc. v. Paikin, 402 F.Supp.2d 1251 (D.Colo. 2005) preliminary injunction proceeding concerning covenant not to compete.

Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2004)lead counsel in successfully representing the world’s largest uranium mining company in this $200 million suit in federal court in Colorado.  Our client obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, which was affirmed on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.  Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied.

Solbourne Computer, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, 01 Z 1886 (D. Colo. 2003)lead trial counsel in successfully representing the plaintiff in a two-week jury trial in federal court in Colorado regarding a multi-million dollar implementation of business enterprise software.  Our client was also awarded its legal fees and costs.

Martinez v. Farmland Insurance, Inc., 99-M-1244 (D. Colo. 1999)lead counsel in defending an ERISA class action suit against the insurance affiliate of the nation’s largest agricultural cooperative.   The case was ultimately dismissed with our client paying no consideration of any kind to the plaintiffs.

Bell v. American Medical Response, Inc., 98-CV-460 (Denver Dist. 1998)lead counsel in defending a class action suit against the nation’s largest ambulance service company.  The case was ultimately dismissed with our client paying no consideration of any kind to the plaintiffs.

Pasternak v. Zapata Corp., et al., 1996 WL 549960, Jacobs, V.C. (Del.Ch. 1996), appeal dismissed, 693 A.2d 319 (Del. 1997) lead counsel in obtaining a permanent injunction in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of a plaintiff class of minority shareholders to prevent an $80 million merger of two publicly traded companies.

MacLane Gas Company Limited Partnership v. Enserch Corporation, et al., Del. Ch. C.A. No. 10760, Chandler, V.C. (Dec. 9, 1992), affirmed,633 A.2d 369 (Oct. 18, 1993) successful trial counsel for the plaintiff class of minority shareholders who obtained a judgment in the Delaware Court of Chancery for $63 million for breach of fiduciary duties.  The judgment was obtained after a four-week trial in a class action suit against a publicly traded natural gas company, which judgment was affirmed on appeal and collected in full.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Changing Expectations: Managing Partner Roundtable Discussion, Law Week Colorado (June 20, 2011)

Unenforceability of Exculpatory Clauses and of the Economic Loss Doctrine in Cases Involving Intentional Tort, Trial Talk (August/September 2008)

Electronic Discovery, Spoliation and Other Issues for Expert Witnesses, National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts (October 2006)

 

Contact + Connect

Sander Ingebretsen & Wake, P.C.

1660 17th Street, Suite 450

Denver, Colorado 80202

303.285.5300

[email protected]

 

 

Copyright © 2011, Sander Ingebretsen & Wake, P.C. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy. | Terms of Use. | Site Admin. | Remote Access.