Nathan Holcomb

Partner, New York

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, intellectual property, securities, antitrust and executive compensation.

Nate is currently representing a leading financial services institution in a federal lawsuit against a large mortgage originator arising from a failed merger, as well as counselling insurers responding to claims under representation and warranties policies issued in connection with merger and acquisition transactions. Nate recently represented an investor in a popular, celebrity-endorsed moonshine whiskey brand in a dispute with the company’s founder and CEO; before that he represented 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:

  • 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

  • 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 major telecommunications company in multiple litigations, including cases against an international bank and against other major telecommunications companies

  • 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