Nathan Holcomb

Partner, New York
+1 646-970-7521 nholcomb@rochefreedman.com

Nate is a founding partner of Roche Freedman.

Nate is an experienced litigator with a focus on the resolution of complex, high-stakes business disputes through litigation in federal and state courts, arbitration and mediation. He counsels clients in sectors ranging from financial services to alcoholic beverages to art in a wide variety of matters, including disputes relating to commercial contracts, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, insurance, intellectual property, securities, antitrust and executive compensation.

Nate and the Roche Freedman team recently won a bench trial, following nearly five years of litigation, regarding a financial services M&A dispute where the counterparty failed to close the transaction. He counsels insurers responding to claims under representation and warranties policies issued in connection with merger and acquisition transactions and provides representation in ensuing litigation, including in two currently pending court cases. During the credit crisis, he advised several investment banks regarding approximately $200 billion in troubled leveraged buyout transactions.

Nate’s experience in the alcoholic beverage industry includes representation of the founders and sellers of the original hard seltzer brand in an earnout dispute with its acquirer; representation of an investor in a popular, celebrity-endorsed moonshine whiskey brand in a dispute with the company’s founder and CEO; and representation of the same investor in a high-profile control dispute with the co-founder and CEO of a rapidly growing ultra-premium rye whiskey brand.

Nate was also a member of the trial team that defended the former president of a leading art gallery in a jury trial of fraud claims arising from the sale of a forged artwork previously believed to be by Mark Rothko, dubbed the “The Art Trial of the Century” by ArtNews.

Nate represents pro bono clients as a member of the pro bono panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court on which he previously clerked. As court-appointed counsel, he has represented clients including an asylum applicant and a plaintiff pursuing a civil rights claim arising from a police stop.

Nate’s current and recent engagements include representations of:

  • The founders and sellers of the original hard seltzer brand in an earnout dispute with its acquirer

  • A leading financial services institution in a federal lawsuit against a large mortgage originator arising from a failed merger

  • An investor in a rapidly growing ultra-premium rye whiskey brand in a high-profile control dispute with the company’s co-founder and CEO

  • An investor in a popular, celebrity-endorsed moonshine whiskey brand in a dispute with the company’s founder and CEO

  • The former president of a prominent art gallery in a forgery case dubbed “The Art Trial of the Century” by ArtNews

  • Insurers responding to claims under representations and warranties policies issued in connection with merger and acquisition transactions, including two pending court cases

  • Plaintiffs in an antitrust class action addressing pricing and marketing of EpiPens

  • A large retailer in a federal antitrust opt-out action based on price-fixing by producers of canned tuna

  • An international bank in litigation related to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar mortgage-backed commercial paper facility following a fraud by the transaction’s sponsor

  • A leading real estate developer in multiple lawsuits involving a former business partner

  • A leading financial institution in a federal securities opt-out action seeking damages for admitted financial fraud

  • A pharmaceutical company and its board members in a federal securities lawsuit and a related shareholder derivative action

  • A provider of technological services for the legal profession in a contract dispute with a former provider of consulting services

  • A prominent publisher defending intellectual property claims arising from a bestselling book satirizing a Hollywood celebrity

  • Individual corporate executives in employment-related disputes
  • Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude; Notes Chair, Harvard Law Review; Member of Winning Team, Ames Moot Court Competition
  • Oxford University, D.Phil., Philosophy
  • Harvard College, A.B., Philosophy
  • Note, Original Meaning and Its Limits, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1279 (2007)
  • The Supreme Court, 2004 Term – Leading Cases, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 169, 366 (2005) (comment on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005))
  • Recent Case, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 794 (2004) (comment on United States v. Johnson, 380 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2004))
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court: Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals: Second Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit
  • Hon. Pamela Ann Rymer, U.S. Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit