Mr. Makoff has represented clients in numerous significant cases. Examples of cases Mr. Makoff has handled include the following:

	Represented Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. in a federal and state antitrust action involving the market for sale and lease of non-linear (digital) motion picture editing equipment. The complex action involved extensive discovery in the U.S. and United Kingdom. The case resulted in a published Ninth Circuit opinion on “standing” to bring antitrust claims (Glen Holly Entertainment Inc v. Tektronix Inc., 343 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2002)).
	Represented FHP, Inc. in state constitutional litigation with the California Attorney General arising out of the Attorney General's $50 million damages claim against the health maintenance organization. The case resulted in a precedent-setting decision establishing constitutional and statutory limits on the California Attorney General's standing in corporate cases (John K. Van de Kamp v. Robert Gumbiner, et al., 221 Cal. App. 3d 1260 (1990) (with Frank Rothman and James E. Lyons of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom).
	Represented a leading San Francisco-based digital art studio in a contest for corporate control that arose from the diversion of video game art clients to a competitive business in Shanghai, and concurrent misappropriation of corporate funds. Mr. Makoff's work with the client, Chinese counsel and U.S. law enforcement agencies resulted in a recovery of the lost business and stabilization of corporate control in the client's hands.
	Represented a Florida-based financing company in multi-party federal litigation involving the sale of a fraudulent promissory note, backed by fraudulent guaranties, and related to Russian religious icons. During the 10 years in which the litigation was pending, Mr. Makoff and Ms. Fenichel handled the federal jury trial, two Ninth Circuit appeals, extensive discovery and a variety of complex judgment enforcement procedures.
	Handled numerous “submission”, royalty and First Amendment cases for California-based media companies and their producers.
	Represented a well-known producer in a federal copyright infringement action against a major video game publisher, arising out of an artwork license.
	Frequently consulted by California family law specialists for advice and representation in marital dissolutions that involve complex assets or “community” business management. Mr. Makoff has extensive experience with Family Code §1100 and the related areas of interspousal business torts and fiduciary duty compliance. In October 2009, Mr. Makoff presented to the Northern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers on “Suite Surrender: Managing The Complex Collisions Between Family Law and Corporate/Business Law.”
	Represented a substantial family trust in an action against a co-trustee and financial institution arising out of the unauthorized dissipation of trust funds. The action involved coordinated probate and civil proceedings, with concurrent equitable claims against the co-trustee and jury claims against the financial institution. Mr. Makoff settled the claims against the co-trustee and tried the jury claims against the financial institution defendant.
	Represented the former President and CEO of a publicly-traded bank in stock option-related compensation claims. Mr. Makoff and Ms. Fenichel tried the case, which involved complex accounting, contract and fraud issues, to a San Francisco jury.
	Acted as lead trial counsel in jury cases throughout California in securities law, executive compensation, entertainment law/First Amendment, insurance bad faith, negligent supervision of employees, major tort claims, financial compensation, breach of fiduciary duty and real estate.
	Represented numerous individuals in actions and investigations by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, alleging insider trading and other violations of law. Mr. Makoff also litigates “broker-dealer” cases involving churning (excessive trading), unsuitability (improper investments made by a broker) and lack of authorization, both in court and in arbitrations under National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules.