Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1995

Harvard University, A.B., magna cum laude, 1990

Photo of Andrew N. Goldfarb

Andrew N. Goldfarb


Recognized as a “Future Star” by Benchmark Litigation, Andrew N. Goldfarb is an experienced litigator who focuses on food and drug law as well as plaintiff- and defense-side complex civil litigation.

In his food and drug practice, Andrew has:

  • helped a major generic drug manufacturer respond to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement action;
  • successfully litigated the first case involving the generic exclusivity forfeiture provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act;
  • conducted an independent internal investigation for a major pharmaceutical company accused of withholding material drug safety information from FDA; and
  • counseled drug and device clients on a wide range of matters, including drug promotional and advertising activities and medical device classifications.

In his complex litigation practice, Andrew has:

  • represented creditors’ committees and bankruptcy trustees in fraudulent conveyance and accounting malpractice cases;
  • defended a data vendor sued over a potential data breach arising out of a computer theft;
  • prosecuted a consumer class action lawsuit against major oil companies and retail sellers of motor fuel; and
  • defended an individual in a criminal prosecution relating to the alleged promotion of fraudulent tax shelters by a major accounting firm.

Prior to joining Zuckerman Spaeder, Andrew was a trial attorney for six years in U.S. Department of Justice, where he prosecuted the United States’ civil enforcement action against the tobacco industry under RICO. After a nine-month trial, the federal district court issued a 1,650-page opinion finding the defendants liable for RICO violations and ordered injunctive relief. The decision was upheld on appeal.

  • Represented a generic drug manufacturer in a challenge to the FDA’s approval of its drug under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The action for a preliminary injunction was brought against the FDA by a competitor who claimed that the client had forfeited its 180-day generic exclusivity under the FDCA, and Zuckerman’s client intervened. In the first case addressing the generic exclusivity forfeiture provisions of the FDCA, the court refused to enjoin FDA from approving the drug, allowing Zuckerman Spaeder’s client to continue marketing its drug.
  • Conducted an independent internal investigation for an international pharmaceutical company, after the company failed to disclose to the FDA a preliminary report of a drug safety study before an important advisory committee meeting. The drug had been approved by the FDA to reduce bleeding in certain cardiac surgery patients. After conducting dozens of interviews of all of the key participants in the events at issue, in the United States and Germany, and conducting extensive document discovery, Zuckerman Spaeder prepared a report detailing the critical events and potential causes of the company’s failure to disclose.
  • Assisting a major generic drug company in its implementation of a consent decree with the FDA.
  • Represented the official committee of unsecured creditors of the Tribune Company as special litigation counsel in the investigation of the $10 billion failed leveraged buyout (LBO) and the commencement and initial prosecution of three lawsuits against major lenders for fraudulent conveyance; directors and officers, former Tribune shareholders, and others for breaches of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyance; and financial advisors to Tribune for malpractice.
  • Represented a post-confirmation committee in a suit against a leading private equity investor to recover funds on behalf of unsecured creditors of a leading toy retailer. The defendants had engineered a leveraged buyout of the company that burdened the retailer with an unsustainable debt load while the private equity firm extracted substantial returns in a very short period. Zuckerman Spaeder obtained a favorable settlement for the creditors.
  • Serving as class counsel for millions of consumers who are suing gas stations and oil companies over alleged deceptive practices in the retail sale of gas and diesel fuel. The class claims that retailers sold gas to consumers without adjusting the price to take account of lower fuel content of higher temperature gas. The cases are currently consolidated for pretrial proceeding in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
  • Represented the litigation trustee of a bankrupt retail mail order company in an accounting malpractice action against KPMG. The trustee alleged that KPMG’s negligent audit caused the company to continue operations after it would otherwise have filed for bankruptcy, deepening its insolvency and injuring creditors. After extensive discovery, including the taking of testimony from German directors and officers under the Hague convention, the parties reached a favorable settlement.
  • Defended a chain of yoga studios against claims that it was a racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and Virginia law. The plaintiff alleged that the company engaged in practices that diminished his ability to exercise free will and independent judgment and induced him to dramatically change his lifestyle and pay significant sums of money to the company for services. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff had not adequately pleaded a RICO enterprise distinct from the defendants themselves, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.
  • Defended a data vendor to a major retailer in a putative class action arising out of a data breach. A laptop computer containing personal information of job applicants was stolen from the vendor. The plaintiffs claimed they were injured by the increased risk of identity theft, although there was no evidence that the breach resulted in actual identity theft. The client prevailed on summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on the grounds that the mere threat of future injury was not sufficient to impose liability under California law. We briefed and argued the appeal for the client before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision.
  • Acted as co-counsel to the lead defendant in the prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of former partners of Ernst & Young and others for allegedly promoting fraudulent tax shelters.
  • Co-authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids regarding constitutional limits on punitive damages. The amicus brief focused on the reprehensibility of Philip Morris’s conduct.
  • Assisted a woman in maintaining sole custody of her children.

Bar Admissions

Court Admissions

Community Involvement

  • Co-Chair of Social Action Committee, Temple Sinai, Washington, DC (2009-2011)