log in
Print | Back

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Jamie Gottlieb Furia

Jamie Gottlieb Furia


Lowenstein Sandler LLP
New York, U.S.A.

tel: 646.414.6887
Send an Email

Local Time: Thu. 20:06


Jamie counsels individuals and companies in criminal and other enforcement investigations. Her white collar practice includes representing clients in government investigations involving allegations of criminal antitrust, accounting fraud, securities fraud, health care fraud, and violations of federal environmental laws. Jamie’s clients operate in a range of industries, including the pharmaceutical, technology, and financial services sectors. 

Jamie also has extensive experience conducting complex, highly sensitive internal investigations on behalf of public and private companies, corporate boards, and special committees. She is adept at handling internal investigations involving regulatory compliance, employee misconduct, accounting and company expenditures, and criminal misconduct. When conducting investigations, Jamie often advises companies on corporate governance issues, compliance programs, and data security.

In addition to her white collar and investigations practice, Jamie has substantial experience litigating sophisticated civil matters, including securities fraud class actions and corporate litigation, in both state and federal courts. 

Jamie is committed to representing individuals in need on a pro bono basis. She recently worked with a legal team that secured asylum for refugee children from Central America. As a member of the Advisory Board of the New Jersey Law & Education Empowerment Project (NJ LEEP), a community-based organization committed to creating a college-bound path for urban youth, she is dedicated to the public interest and to urban education reform. 

Prior to joining Lowenstein Sandler, Jamie served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Bar Admissions

    New York
    New Jersey


Seton Hall University School of Law (J.D. 2009), magna cum laude, Order of the Coif; Distinguished Public Interest Scholar; Comments Editor, Seton Hall Law Review
New York University (B.A. 2006), Psychology, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
Areas of Practice
Professional Career

Significant Accomplishments

Senior member of team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct including sexual harassment, domestic violence, and inappropriate behavior within the Dallas Mavericks’ business operations. The seven-month investigation culminated in the release of The Report of the Independent Investigation of Dallas Basketball Limited, detailing harassment and workplace misconduct over 20 years, lack of compliance and internal controls within the organization, errors in judgment among Mavericks’ leadership, and recommendations for changes to the Mavericks’ organization.

Representing a public company in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division’s investigation into allegations of price fixing.

Represented a public company in connection with an internal investigation pursuant to section 10A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 into accounting concerns raised by the company’s independent auditors.

Successfully represented a partner in business dispute concerning a large apartment complex; obtained judgment in excess of $50 million against defendant managing partner for civil racketeering offenses, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breaches of the partnership agreement and partnership law.

Successfully represented an international company in an antitrust investigation by the DOJ.

Successfully represented an entity under investigation by the New Jersey Bureau of Securities for alleged violations of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Act.

Represents individuals under investigation for alleged tax-fraud violations by the U.S. Attorney's Offices in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey.

Represents an agency of an international state in defending against a bankruptcy adversary proceeding arising from the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC Ponzi scheme recovery.

Represents an international corporation in a high-stakes federal litigation relating to copyright infringement and unfair competition allegations.

Successfully represented a pharmaceutical corporation defending against RICO and Consumer Fraud Act claims in a class action lawsuit.

Speaking Engagements

Rob Kipnees and Jamie Gottlieb Furia will present "NJ Criminal Trial Practice" as part of the New York City Bar's "New Jersey Bridge-The-Gap: Satisfy the Mandatory 15 Credits and More" CLE program.

Professional Associations

New Jersey Law and Education Empowerment Project (NJ LEEP, Inc.), Advisory BoardWomen's White Collar Defense AssociationNew York City Bar

Professional Activities and Experience

  • New Jersey Rising Stars (2013-2018) - Furia


Making sense of U.S. antitrust law is a nearly impossible feat. If you have ever attempted it, you likely found yourself entangled in a labyrinth of intricate rules, followed by an even larger web of obscure exceptions to those rules. The murky nature of antitrust law is further exacerbated when foreign corporations, or foreign affiliates of U.S. corporations, find themselves in a U.S. court defending against allegations of anticompetitive conduct.

While this may be of little consolation to foreign entities, the reality is that the existing case law is inconsistent. Nonetheless, the livelihood of a foreign entity may hinge on knowing how to defend against an antitrust lawsuit. To make matters worse, in the most recent antitrust case involving foreign companies, Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corporation,1 the Third Circuit made it more complicated for foreign defendants to get out from under complex and expensive litigation. In that case, the court significantly tipped the scales against foreign entities defending against violations of antitrust law, particularly with respect to litigation exposure and costs. If this decision is any indication of the future for antitrust litigation, foreign defendants undoubtedly will face an increasingly uphill battle. Ironically, as the litigation stakes become higher, the law seems to become muddier.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) instilled new urgency in the quest to improve America’s public schools.1 NCLB requires schools to meet state-defined performance benchmarks, and schools that fail to do so are deemed as in need of “school improvement,” “corrective action,” or “restructuring” and are subject to escalating penalties.2 The most severe sanction occurs after a school fails to meet a state’s benchmarks for six consecutive years and, therefore, must fundamentally reform its governance operations through the process of restructuring.3 NCLB delineates five ways in which a school may restructure, one of which is the charter conversion option, whereby a school reopens as an independent entity but still operates within the public school system.4 Charter schools provide autonomous and alternative education models. Since these schools are governed according to state law, however, many states micromanage charter schools to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from traditional public schools.5 A tension arises between NCLB’s focus on fundamental restructuring and charter school statutes that do not allow for a complete overhaul of a school’s governance structure.

WSG's members are independent firms and are not affiliated in the joint practice of professional services. Each member exercises its own individual judgments on all client matters.

HOME | SITE MAP | GLANCE | PRIVACY POLICY | DISCLAIMER |  © World Services Group, 2019