To be considered, lawyers must be nominated by their peers. Nominees then undergo a vetting process, including independent research, peer evaluation, and managing partner surveys, to be selected for this award. 

William (Bill) Sinclair appears on the 2026 Top 100 list for the second year in a row. He is also featured on the inaugural Top 5 Business Litigation Attorneys in Maryland. 

Our four founders, Steven D. Silverman, Brian G. Thompson, Andrew G. Slutkin, and Andrew C. White have all earned their 20^th Super Lawyers recognition.  

2026 Maryland Super Lawyers 

We are pleased to announce the following Silverman Thompson lawyers have been selected for the 2026 Maryland Super Lawyers list: 

• Marshall T. Henslee: Criminal Defense
• Steven N. Leitess: Business Litigation  
• Ethan S. Nochumowitz: Personal Injury (General): Plaintiff
• Andrew G. Norman: Criminal Defense 
• Monica L. Scherer: Family Law  
• Steven D. Silverman: Civil Litigation: Defense  
• William (Bill) Sinclair: Business Litigation 
• Andrew G. Slutkin: Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff 
• Brian G. Thompson: Criminal Defense 
• Jason T. Wasserman: Personal Injury (General): Plaintiff  
• Andrew C. White: Business Litigation  
• Ramsay M. Whitworth: Business Litigation 

2026 Maryland Super Lawyers Rising Stars 

• Erin D. Brooks: Real Estate 
• Andrew Harvey: Business Litigation 
• Ilona Shparaga:  Business Litigation 
• Kerri Smith: Real Estate 
• Nathan Volke: Family Law  
• Megan R. Weaver: Business Litigation  
• Justin A. Batoff: Mergers & Acquisitions

As a result of Silverman Thompson’s motions practice, the court found that the at-issue arbitration provision “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration for these claims. Ultimately, the court granted the motion, enforced the arbitration provision, and dismissed the case, securing a significant victory for our client.

Silverman Thompson Compels Arbitration of Putative Class Action Filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

In Wood v. NFM, Inc., Civil No. GJR-24-02207, Chief Judge Russell of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently granted Silverman Thompson’s client NFM, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration.  A copy of the opinion can be found here.

Plaintiff William Wood sought to bring a collective action, or in the alternative, a class action, suit against NFM under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming that he and other non-exempt, hourly employees who had worked for NFM as loan originators, loan officers, or loan officer assistances, had not properly been paid overtime, amongst other purported federal wage and hour violations. The action revolved around employment agreements that contained a binding arbitration provision that required disputes between the parties to be brought in arbitration.

At the outset of the case, Silverman Thompson moved to compel arbitration and dismiss for improper venue arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were subject to the agreement’s binding arbitration provision, including its fee shifting provision that would allow NFM to recover its fees for having to compel arbitration, should it prove successful on its motion. Plaintiff amended his complaint in the hope of being able to avoid arbitration, limiting his claims to those arising out of an earlier agreement he executed with NFM that purportedly contained a one-sided arbitration provision that would have allowed NFM to litigate any dispute with him in federal or state court but would have required him to proceed through arbitration only.    

Silverman Thompson again filed a motion to compel, arguing that a later-signed employment agreement controlled.  That motion was briefed in full (as is custom, the Court did not hold a hearing on the motion).  After carefully considering the briefing, the Court sided with NFM, finding that the later-signed agreement did control and that the binding arbitration provision at issue “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration for the plaintiff’s claims.

Ultimately, the court granted the motion, enforced the binding arbitration provision, dismissed the case, and gave NFM an opportunity to seek its fees and costs for having to file the motion in the first place, securing a significant victory for Silverman Thompson’s client.

The Importance of Arbitration in Resolving Business Disputes

Binding arbitration provisions serve as a crucial tool for businesses and individuals to efficiently resolve disputes while avoiding the costs and uncertainties of prolonged litigation and, oftentimes, a jury being the ultimate decision-maker rather than a judge or lawyer, trained in the law. Courts consistently recognize and enforce arbitration agreements when properly drafted, reinforcing the principle that parties must honor their contractual commitments.

By securing a dismissal in this case, Silverman Thompson reaffirmed the strength of arbitration clauses and the protection they offer against forum shopping and unnecessary litigation. This outcome underscores the importance of well-structured employment agreements and demonstrates Silverman Thompson’s commitment to and experience with drafting sound employment agreement and defending businesses and individuals against unwarranted legal claims.

Contact Silverman Thompson’s Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions Team

The business and civil lawyers at Silverman Thompson are well versed in defending putative wage and hour class actions in both federal and state court, here in Maryland and elsewhere. 

Please contact Bill Sinclair, department head, at bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com or at (410) 385-2225 to discuss this case or how Silverman Thompson may be able to help you.

Jurisdictions across the country have brought suit against dozens of energy companies for allegedly causing or exacerbating problems related to climate change. While plaintiffs’ theories have evolved since these suits were first filed almost a decade ago, in their current iteration, plaintiffs like the City of Baltimore claim that the energy companies have known for half a century that use of their fossil fuel products have created greenhouse gas pollution that has, inter alia, contributed to global warming but, rather than share their knowledge, have engaged in a campaign of deception to misrepresent and conceal their products’ risks.

The City of Baltimore in particular claims that as a result of this misrepresentation and concealment, it and the public at large have relied to their detriment on the energy companies’ false statements, causing climate change-related injuries such as sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of extreme precipitation events, increased frequency and severity of drought, increased frequency and severity of heat wave and extreme temperatures, and consequently social and economic damages associated with those physical and environmental changes.

Baltimore first brought suit in state court in July 2018. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which remanded the matter in June 2019. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision in March 2020, but the matter was stayed that summer pending a decision on a writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately vacated and remanded the case for consideration of defendants’ theories of removal. The Fourth Circuit nonetheless affirmed remand in 2022, and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lifted the stay in May 2023.  The parties thereafter briefed motions to dismiss, and the court held oral argument in March 2024.

Generally, defendants’ motions advanced four arguments: the City’s claims are preempted by federal common law; the City’s state law claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act; the City’s claims raise nonjusticiable political questions, and the City failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The Court granted the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that the City’s claims were preempted by both federal common law and the Clean Air Act and that, even were that not the case, the City has failed to adequately plead its state law claims. 

Silverman Thompson has served as local counsel to Shell plc and Shell USA, Inc. (collectively “Shell”) in this matter since the outset (we also represent Shell as local counsel in similar litigation pending in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County).

Silverman Thompson lawyers have both prosecuted and defended complex environmental and tort matters in Maryland’s state and federal courts as well as across the country.  To learn more about Silverman Thompson generally, or its sophisticated business litigation practice, please contact Bill Sinclair, who served as the primary Silverman Thompson lawyer handling this matter. He can be reached directly at 410.385.9116.

July 1, 2024 – On Friday, June 21, 2024, Under Armour announced that, subject to court approval, it had settled a pending securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The settlement closes a case originally filed in February 2017, which had twice been dismissed with prejudice before finding new life after it was reported in the fall of 2019 that the Securities & Exchange Commission and United States Department of Justice had fined Under Armour for the conduct alleged here. That announcement proved the tipping point in the case, as thereafter, Judge Richard Bennett allowed the case to return from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (where the dismissal had been on appeal), reversed himself on the dismissal, and ultimately certified a class and denied summary judgment and Under Armour’s motions in limine. The case was scheduled to begin a two-plus-week jury trial on July 15, 2024.  

Read the Baltimore Banner’s reporting on the matter here. 

            At its heart, this case was about the defendants’ actions in 2015 and 2016.  Through the third quarter of 2016, Under Armour had experienced 26 consecutive quarters of growth, a point that Under Armour founder, Kevin Plank, proudly reiterated as often as he could to investors. Indeed, according to Plank, that feat was shared by only one other company in the S&P 500 and he touted it to instill confidence that, notwithstanding the critical pressure that Under Armour faced from competitors like Nike and Adidas, it was all but assured of continued growth. 

            In reality, Under Armour began to experience a severe decline in its apparel business in or around 2015, as customer demand for the company’s core products began to wane and Under Armour failed to keep up with then-current “athleisure” trends. Faced with these and other issues, the Company abandoned its fundamental sales philosophy of competing on brand strength over price and resorted to lowering sales prices, offering promotions, and liquidating excess inventory at steep discounts.  All of this occurred at a time when its chief rival, Nike, was steadily increasing average sales prices. 

            To preserve Under Armour’s carefully cultivated image of a fast-growing, cutting-edge sports brand on par with the Nikes of the world, it is alleged that Under Armour made false representations to the market about the strength of its growth and customer demand while downplaying or concealing the company’s ballooning inventory, liquidations, and gross margin compression. Coupled with suspicious stock sales by Plank himself and the resignation of its chief financial officer only 13 months after he took the job, the market finally began to take notice in 2017 of what had been occurring, at which time, Robbins Geller and Silverman Thompson filed their initial complaint in this matter.     

            A hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement will occur on July 22, 2024.  If the court grants preliminary approval, it is expected that a 120 day period will follow during which objections, if any, could be lodged to the settlement.  It is further expected that Judge Bennett will hold a final conference in November regarding settlement approval.  If approved, this may be the first case in American history to have been dismissed twice with prejudice only to later settle for close to half a billion dollars. 

            Silverman Thompson was engaged by Robbins Geller to serve as local counsel in this matter. Silverman Thompson lawyers have prosecuted and defended class actions in Maryland’s state and federal courts and across the country.  To learn more about Silverman Thompson generally, or its class action practice specifically, please contact Bill Sinclair, who served as the primary Silverman Thompson lawyer handling this matter. He can be reached directly at 410.385.9116.

The case involved a complicated land dispute related to a barn built by plaintiffs that significantly encroached on property purchased by Firm client. In their lawsuit filed in 2022, plaintiffs alleged over $100,000 in alleged damages, dated back to 2016, and requested that the Court declare plaintiffs the legal owners of the barn.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the Firm’s client under seven counts, specifically: (1) temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, (2) declaratory judgment, (3) trespass to possessory interest, (4) trespass to chattels, (5) quiet title, (6) possession of property, and (7) conversion. Bill Sinclair, Avery Strachan, Kerri Smith, and Erin Brooks handled the case for the Firm, filing a Motion to Dismiss all claims alleged by plaintiffs.

On November 2, 2023, Kerri Smith argued the Firm’s Motion to Dismiss in front of the Honorable Judge Mary Kramer in the Circuit Court for Howard County. After the matter was held sub curia, Judge Kramer ruled in favor of the Firm’s argument that the three-year statute of limitations articulated in Section 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article barred all seven of plaintiffs’ claims, and dismissed plaintiffs’ entire First Amended Verified Complaint with prejudice. A copy of the opinion is here.

The Silverman Thompson real estate litigation department is well-versed in land disputes and defending claims for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief. To find out more about how we might be able to help you, please click on the hyperlinks above to see the attorneys who handled this matter.

The case involved race and religious discrimination claims brought under federal law by a group of plaintiffs against a dining establishment in Anne Arundel County. Bill Sinclair, Kate Sinclair, and Emma Mulford handled the case for the firm, and they successfully saw many of the claims dismissed on a motion to dismiss. After dozens of depositions during discovery, the firm filed summary judgment on the remaining claims. Chief Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner (the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate) adopted the arguments the Firm presented – namely, that the plaintiffs had lodged most of their claims against the wrong corporate defendant, and that any remaining claims failed to present sufficient factual evidence of race or religious discrimination to withstand summary judgment. A copy of the opinion is here.

The Firm’s business litigation department is well-versed in defending claims of race and religious discrimination. To find out more about how we might be able to help you, please click on any of the hyperlinks above to the attorneys who handled this matter.