Barrett J. Vahle, Attorney

Barrett grew up on a family farm in Warren County, Missouri. In 2004, he graduated cum laude from the University of Missouri − Columbia School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Missouri Law Review, and received the Judge Shepard Barclay Prize for the graduating law student "who has attained the highest standing in scholarship and moral leadership." After law school, Barrett was a law clerk for the Honorable Duane Benton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and then for Judge Dean Whipple of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Before joining Stueve Siegel Hanson in 2009, Barrett practiced at Sonnenshein Nath & Rosenthal LLP in Kansas City. At Sonnenschein, Barrett concentrated his practice in business litigation, white collar criminal defense, and appellate practice. He was the second chair trial lawyer in a two-week federal mortgage fraud jury trial. Both of his clients were acquitted. He also represented a mentally retarded inmate on Alabama's death row in federal habeas corpus proceedings. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama vacated the inmate's death sentence because his execution would be unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

Barrett also has represented clients in a broad range of business litigation matters, including such areas as breach of contract, trade secret and non-competition litigation, class actions, insurance coverage, employment, intellectual property, and products liability litigation. Barrett's litigation experience covers federal and state courts, arbitration and mediation.

Pending Litigation

Auction rate securities litigation (Securities Litigation) At Stueve Siegel Hanson, Barrett is on the team prosecuting several of the cases brought against sellers of so called auction rate securities or ARS. The cases generally allege that the broker-dealers involved in the sale of ARS materially misrepresented the liquidity and risks of the securities to individual investors and corporations by labeling these securities as cash equivalents in press releases, monthly account statements, individual communications with investors, and other investment guidance material. The claims, brought under the securities laws of the United States, allege that the promised liquidity of the auction rate securities was created through artificial intervention in the auctions by the broker-dealers. The litigation was initiated when the market for auction rate securities collapsed when all of the major broker-dealers announced that they would no longer purchase auction rate securities for their own accounts to ensure that the securities would remain liquid. Thousands of auctions run by the broker-dealers failed and over $200 billion in auction rate securities that were once offered as cash equivalents became illiquid, resulting in economic losses and severe hardships for investors.