Mark Baldwin practices primarily in the areas of complex commercial, corporate, and environmental litigation. During his career, he has tried over one hundred jury and bench trials. As litigation counsel, he represents some of the country's largest corporations, as well as their officers, directors and shareholder. Mark has substantial experience in representing private equity firms and their portfolio companies throughout the country, including matters concerning securities fraud, contractual indemnification claims, earn-outs, post-closing adjustments, escrow disputes, customer disputes, and environmental issues. In addition, Mark has defended several large corporations and financial institutions against class action claims and shareholder derivative suits; these actions have included claims based on alleged violations of the federal securities laws, products liability claims, and environmental and toxic tort issues.

Mark also represents health care providers in actions asserting claims for fraud, mismanagement and corporate misconduct. He has successfully prosecuted and defended a number of appeals in the State of Connecticut, the Second and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court.



Moxie Holdings, Inc. v. PAE Holding Corporation

Represented large government contractor in multimillion-dollar post-acquisition dispute including claims of fraud and breach of contract. After extensive discovery, the matter settled on terms favorable to PAE on the eve of trial. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Project Boat Holdings, LLC v. Bass Pro

Represented seller of top-of-the- line competition level bass boat manufacturer in post-closing dispute against major retailer that asserted claims for fraud and breach of contract. After a five-day bench trial, the Delaware Chancery Court found in favor of Project Boat on all counts.

Snowstorm Acquisition Corp. v. Tecumseh Products Company et al.

Represented private equity firm in post-closing securities fraud and indemnification litigation against Tecumseh Products Company following Tecumseh’s divestiture of its strategic engine manufacturing subsidiary. After extensive discovery, Brown Rudnick obtained a favorable settlement on the eve of trial. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Polargrid LLC v. VSNL

Represented Polargrid LLC, a Russian telecommunications firm which planned to offer connectivity to Europe, Asia and the U.S. by constructing an international fiberoptic cable system traversing the Arctic ocean, as plaintiff in a $1.5 billion federal court lawsuit against an Indian corporation, Videsh Sanchar Nigarn Limited (VSNL), India’s largest, international telecommunications carrier. Polargrid asserted in this litigation that VSNL, in part, reneged on its obligation to provide Polargrid with the opportunity to purchase approximately 12-15% of the world’s undersea, fiber optic cable capacity. After a six-week trial, the litigation was amicably settled on the eve of closing arguments. The terms of the agreement are confidential.

ONECHANGE v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (“CRRA”)

Defended CRRA, a quasi-governmental resources recovery agency, in contentious litigation with a powerful neighborhood association, which sought damages in excess of $20 million. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a defendant’s verdict after deliberating less than fifteen minutes.

Fischer v. Iroquois Natural Gas

Defended Iroquois, an interstate natural gas pipeline company, against multimillion-dollar fraud claims arising out of complicated real estate transaction. After a three-week trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Iroquois on all counts.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover Development Corp.

Represented Konover Development Corp., a national real estate development company, in a federal court action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in which Plaintiff, Wells Fargo, claimed that Konover Development Corp. and other related Konover entities were liable in part as successors in interest for a foreign judgment in Maryland state court. In a state court action initiated by Wells Fargo, the Maryland court found a related Konover entity liable for a $23 million judgment. Wells Fargo then sought to enforce the judgment against Konover Development Corp. by claiming that Konover Development Corp. and related Konover entities were successors in interest and by attempting to demonstrate that the Konover entities have no separate existence. Brown Rudnick was successful in getting Konover Development dismissed from the action prior to trial.

Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

Represented Triad Healthcare, Inc. in a putative ERISA class action pending in the Southern District of New York. Brown Rudnick was successful at the outset of the matter in convincing the trial court judge to stay all discovery pending the court’s ruling on a yet to be filed motion to dismiss, which the court ultimately granted. The trial court’s dismissal of the case was later affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit in Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005).

Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

Served as lead defense counsel in Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., a federal court action against the manufacturer of high precision milling machines, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant manufacturer misrepresented the machine’s capabilities and specifications. After the trial court certified the matter as a class action, Brown Rudnick successfully vacated the class certification ruling in a seminal interlocutory appeal before the Seventh Circuit. In its ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that the District Court must apply a more stringent standard of review on a class certification motion and cannot rely exclusively on the allegations contained in the Complaint. This case has since been cited with approval by the United States Supreme Court, and several Circuit Courts of Appeal, in establishing new class certification requirements.


Boston University – J.D., G. Joseph Tauro Scholar, 1986
Note and Comment Editor, Annual Review of Banking Law
University of Michigan – A.B., 1983

Bar Admissions

US District Court for the District of Connecticut
US District Court for the Southern District of New York
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
US Supreme Court
Co-editor, "A Practical Guide to Connecticut Evidence," Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (2013)
"Influential Court Tightens Class Action Certification Standard," Washington Legal Foundation (October 5, 2001)
Professional Affiliations
Federal Practice Committee of the Connecticut Bar Association
The Bench/Bar Committee of the Hartford County Bar Association
American Bar Association’s Litigation Section and Business Torts Committee
Awards and Honors
Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the field of Commercial Litigation (2020-2021)
Named a Connecticut Super Lawyer for Business Litigation (2006-2016, 2018)
Named "Litigation Department of the Year: Business/Commercial Litigation" at Connecticut Law Tribune’s Connecticut Legal Awards
Community Involvement
The American Leadership Forum