Barry R. Ostrager is a senior litigation Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and from 1999 to 2011 was Head of the Litigation Department.  He has tried dozens of cases and argued scores of appeals throughout the country and has been prominently involved in many high-profile securities, anti-trust, and commercial cases.  He was lead trial counsel for Swiss Re in the highly publicized insurance coverage dispute involving the World Trade Center tragedy which resulted in a unanimous jury verdict in favor of Swiss Re, and lead counsel for Hanwha in a multi-billion dollar dispute with the Korean government that was the subject of a multi-week trial.  In 1993, Mr. Ostrager was lead trial and appellate counsel for Paramount Communications in the widely publicized QVC v. Paramount tender offer litigation.  Mr. Ostrager successfully argued before the United States Supreme Court the closely followed Epstein v. Matsushita case that arose out of Matsushita’s successful tender offer for MCA, Inc.  In 2010, he successfully argued again before the Supreme Court the Travelers v. Bailey case, which resolved important issues relating to the rights of settling insurers in asbestos-related bankruptcy.  He also successfully represented Andersen Consulting against a $14 billion claim by Arthur Andersen in connection with Andersen Consulting’s successful bid to win a separation without cost from the Andersen Worldwide organization in the largest ICC arbitration in history.  Mr. Ostrager successfully represented J.P. Morgan Chase in a breach of guarantee contract action against Motorola in which J.P. Morgan Chase obtained a $370 million verdict against Motorola.  In July 2010, Mr. Ostrager was one of the trial counsel who produced a $110 million jury verdict in Arizona State court after a six week trial.  Most recently, in July 2011, Mr. Ostrager obtained a deca-million dollar jury verdict in a commercial dispute on behalf of a member of the Jordanian Royal Family.

Mr. Ostrager has been prominently involved in supervising the firm’s major insurance and reinsurance practices in both its New York and Los Angeles offices.  He has been lead trial counsel in more than a dozen major insurance coverage cases, including Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company, a multi-billion dollar environmental insurance coverage dispute in which the jury returned a verdict for the insurers after a sixteen-month trial.     

Mr. Ostrager is co-author of the Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes (Aspen Law & Business 2010), a widely-used, three-volume treatise now in its fifteenth edition.  Mr. Ostrager is also a frequent lecturer on federal securities law and insurance law.    

In June of 2006, Mr. Ostrager was named the “Leading U.S. Litigation Business Trial Lawyer” by Chambers & Partners. This year, for the tenth consecutive year, Mr. Ostrager was ranked by Chambers as a “Band One” General Commercial Litigator and “Band One” Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer Litigator. Additionally, for the seventh consecutive year, he was ranked as a “Band One” Litigator for Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer/Reinsurance. A great strategist and a robust litigator,” Mr. Ostrager has received widespread praise for his remarkable “ability to get along with both opponents and judges.” For the ninth consecutive year (2005-2013), Mr. Ostrager was recognized as one of the “Top Ten Trial Lawyers” in the U.S. by The Legal 500, distinguishing him as an “exceptionally effective cross-examiner” with “brilliant litigation skills.” Euromoney’s Benchmark Litigation has also recognized Mr. Ostrager as a “Litigation Star” for both General Commercial Litigation and Insurance Litigation (2010–2013).

Mr. Ostrager has been a member of the Firm since 1980.  He received his B.A. from City College of the City University of New York in 1968 and his M.A. in 1973.  He earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1972 and served as a judicial clerk in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Mr. Ostrager is admitted in the New York and California State Bars; the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York, Connecticut, the Western District of Texas and the Northern and Central Districts of California; the United States Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits; the United States Supreme Court; and the United States Court of International Trade.  He is also a member of the City Bar Association, The American Bar Association, The American Law Institute, and the Federal Bar Council.

Honors/Associations

•	American Bar Association
•	American Law Institute
•	City Bar Association
•	Federal Bar Council
•	International Academy of Trial Lawyers

Recent Cases

•	Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 129 S. Ct. 2195 (U.S. June 18, 2009)
•	Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996)
•	SR International Business Insurance Co. Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties LLC, No. 01 CV 9291 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y.)
•	Korea Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Hanwha, et al., ICC Case No. 14501 JB/JEM/EBS/VRO
•	In the matter of the Arbitration between Centre Life Insurance Co. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co.
•	Epicenter Partners LLC, et al. v. Desert Ridge Comty. Ass’n, et al., No. LC 2007-000011-001DT (Ariz. Super. Ct. Maricopa County)
•	Anderson Consulting Business Unit Member Firms v. Arthur Andersen Business Unit Member Firms and Andersen Worldwide Societe Cooperative, 9797/CK/AER/ACS
•	The Chase Manhattan Bank v. Motorola, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 4838 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.)
•	QVC Network v. Paramount, 13208 (DE Ch. Court 1994)
•	Shell Oil v. Travelers Ins., 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 815 (Sup. Ct. San Mateo County)
•	MHTCo. v. Arthur Andersen, 82 Civ. 6622 (S.D.N.Y.)
•	Stonewall Ins. v. National Gypsum, 1998 WL 405047 (S.D.N.Y.)
•	In re 1515 Broadway Associates, L.P. v., 90 B 13320 (S.D.N.Y.)

Publications

•	The Supreme Court Holds That Class Certification of Rule 10b-5 Claims Does Not Require Proof of Materiality
•	Supreme Court Rejects Argument That Section 16(b) Claims Based on “Short Swing” Trades Are Tolled Until Filing of a Section 16(a) Statement
•	New York Court of Appeals Rejects Martin Act Preemption of Common Law Claims of Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Gross Negligence
•	Supreme Court Considers Tolling of Statute of Limitations in Section 16(b) Claims
•	The Supreme Court Finds State Failure-to-Warn Claims Against Generic Drug Manufacturers Impliedly Preempted
•	Global Warming Alert: United States Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, Inc.
•	The Supreme Court Limits Rule 10b-5 Liability to Person or Entity Making Alleged Misstatement
•	The Supreme Court Rejects Loss Causation Requirement at Class Certification Stage
•	Supreme Court Finds the Discover Bank Rule Preempted by FAA
•	The Supreme Court Considers Loss Causation at Time of Class Certification
•	The Supreme Court Rejects Bright-Line Rule on Disclosure of Adverse Event Reports
•	Ostrager & Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes (Aspen Publishers, Inc. 15th Edition 2010)
•	Ostrager & Vyskocil, Modern Reinsurance Law and Practice (Glasser LegalWorks 2nd Edition 2000)
•	Ostrager & Vyskocil, Chapter 59. Crisis Management – Commercial Litigation in New York State Courts, 4A N.Y. Prac., Com. Litig. In New York State Courts (Thompson Reuters 3rd Edition 2011)
•	The Supreme Court Considers the Materiality Requirement in the Context of Drug Companies’ Disclosure of Adverse Event Reports
•	The Supreme Court Considers the Liability of Investment Advisers in Federal Securities Fraud Cases
•	The Supreme Court Considers Whether the FAA Preempts State Court Decision Holding Class Arbitration Waiver Unenforceable
•	The Supreme Court Limits the Extraterritorial Application of the Antifraud Provisions of the U.S. Securities Laws
•	The Supreme Court Holds That Arbitrators, Not Courts, May Decide Challenges To The Enforceability Of Stand-Alone Arbitration Agreements
•	Business Interruption Insurance in the Wake of the Gulf Oil Spill – What Insurers Can Do to Keep Slippery Claims at Bay
•	The Supreme Court Vacates Arbitrators' Decision Allowing Class Arbitration Based Solely On Arbitrators' Own Policy Views
•	The Supreme Court Rejects “Inquiry Notice” as Trigger to Start Running the Statute of Limitations in Securities Fraud Cases
•	The Supreme Court Examines Whether Courts Must Decide the Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses Challenged as Unconscionable
•	The Supreme Court Considers the Application of the Antifraud Provisions of the United States Securities Laws in “Foreign-Cubed” Cases
•	The Supreme Court Considers Whether Class Arbitration is Permitted When the Arbitration Clause is Silent on the Issue
•	Three Federal Courts Issue Back-to-Back Decisions Addressing the Viability of Global Warming Tort Actions
•	Corban v. USAA: Reinterpreting the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
•	The Heightened Pleading Standard of Twombly Applies to All Federal Civil Claims
•	The Supreme Court Allows Non-Signatories to Arbitration Agreements to Seek to Stay Claims under the Federal Arbitration Act
•	California Supreme Court Rules on “Sudden and Accidental” Pollution Exclusion in State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company
•	The Supreme Court Adopts Broader View of Federal Jurisdiction to Hear Motions to Compel Arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act
•	The Supreme Court Hears Argument Concerning the Ability of Non-Signatories to Arbitration Agreements to Stay Claims under the Federal Arbitration Act
•	California Court of Appeal Revisits the Anti-Stacking Rule
•	Supreme Court Finds in a “Lights” Cigarettes Case That Claims for Violation of a State Statutory Duty Not to Deceive Are Not Preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
•	The Supreme Court Considers the Extent of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the FAA
•	Developments In New York Insurance Law: New York Joins States That Require Prejudice To Insurers For Disclaimer of Coverage Based on Late Notice; Allows Direct Actions Against Insurers
•	State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc.: Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Novel Public Nuisance Theory in Favor of Traditional Products Liability Approach
•	The Supreme Court Limits Punitive Damages Award In The Exxon Valdez Case To 1:1 Ratio To Compensatory Damages
•	The Supreme Court Rules Against TV’s “Judge Alex,” Finding That an Agreement to Arbitrate Trumps State Administrative Process
•	New York Allows Consequential Damages Claims Against Commercial Insurers Outside Of Policy Limits
•	Supreme Court Hears Argument in its Second Significant Arbitration Case this Term
•	Continental Casualty Company v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau: New York Court Decides Significant Asbestos Coverage Issues Against Insurer
•	Liability Coverage For Lead Paint Contamination: The Rhode Island Public Nuisance Lead Paint Litigation, One Year Later

Admissions

•	New York 1973
•	California 1996
•	U.S. Supreme Court 1982
•	U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit 1974
•	U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit 1984
•	U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit 1989
•	U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit 1993
•	U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit 1977
•	U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit 1985
•	U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1997
•	U.S. District Court Southern District of New York 1973
•	U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York 1973
•	U.S. District Court District of Connecticut 1978
•	U.S. District Court Northern District of California 1983
•	U.S. District Court Western District of Texas 1986
•	U.S. District Court Northern District of New York 1993
•	U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 1997
•	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 2008
•	U.S. Court of International Trade 2009

Clerkships

•	Hon. Arnold Bauman, Southern District of New York, 1972-1973

Education

•	New York University School of Law, 1972 J.D.
•	City College of the City University of New York, 1973 M.A.
•	City College of the City University of New York, 1968 B.A.