Securities Litigation

Unparalleled nationally recognized expertise. The Securities Litigation group is a close-knit team of more than 40 lawyers dedicated to excellence in the securities and corporate governance fields. The diverse group is nationally recognized for its ability to try and win cases in state and federal courts throughout the US. Lawyers in the group have been recognized by Chambers as among the very best in the field. Our team includes a former SEC Commissioner, a federal prosecutor, Federal and State court judicial clerks and the author of the renowned treatise, The Business Judgment Rule, which has been cited by numerous Federal and State courts.

The practice offers expertise in litigation and counseling involving the duties of officers and directors of public and privately owned companies, accounting and auditing issues, audit committee/special committee independent investigations, securities and fiduciary duty class actions, compliance with SEC and other governmental regulations, disclosure responsibilities, fiduciary duties, internal investigations, Sarbanes Oxley, SEC investigations/proceedings, and shareholder derivative actions. Recently, the practice group has been in the forefront in advising and handling litigation for more than a dozen clients, including internal investigations, arising out of the industry-wide practice of backdating of corporate options. The group also specializes in cutting-edge securities litigation, including those arising under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the short-swing profit provisions of Section 16(b), SEC enforcement proceedings, and white collar prosecutions and investigations.

Proven record of winning. Our group has been the driver in key securities, accounting and corporate governance cases in both Federal and State courts for clients such as AIG, ExxonMobil, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Wal-Mart, General Electric, Sunbeam, LaBranche, M.D. Sass, Thomas H. Lee Co., Motient, Estee Lauder, Kinder Morgan, Enron, Tyco and Arthur Andersen. The group includes respected and seasoned lawyers who opponents know have tried and won cases. Recent victories include:

• Williamson v. AT&T et al. (Santa Clara County Cal.): Obtained a $400 million settlement on the eve of trial on behalf of a trustee for a litigation trust which had brought claims alleging that AT&T, as a controlling shareholder, breached its fiduciary duties to At Home Corporation and stole At Home trade secrets.
• Venoco, Inc. v. Eson, et al. and Eson v. Venoco, Inc. (Del. Ch.): Successful defense, after expedited trial, of claims against Enron and two of its executives for alleged aiding and abetting of what the Court found to be breaches of fiduciary duty by two executives of Venoco, an oil company in which Enron was a major shareholder.
• Value Partners v. Bain & Co. (D. Mass): Obtained jury award for full damages requested ($10 million) after a one-month trial in an action for unfair competition and tortuous interference arising from Bain’s hiring of Value Partners’ Brazilian office’s partners and professional and support staffs, and solicitation of clients.
• Heritage Propane Partner, L.P. v. SCANA Corp and Suburban Propane Partners, L.P.: Won multi-million dollar jury verdict following three-week trial on claims for tortuous interference with contract and prospective contract arising out of our client's successful bid to purchase SCANA's propane assets.
• In re ExxonMobil Securities Litigation (DNJ): Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice in securities fraud class action arising out of the 1999 merger of Exxon and Mobil, and alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Wal-Mart Derivative Litigation: Dismissal of a shareholder derivative action against directors and officers of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., involving, among other claims, allegations of failing to comply with applicable anti-discrimination laws.
• Henik v. LaBranche (S.D.N.Y.): Motion to dismiss derivative action granted for claims alleging failure of oversight in first decision in the Second Circuit that a prior decision holding that demand is required is collateral estoppel in a subsequently brought derivative action.
• In re Estée Lauder Companies Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), and Miriam Loveman v. Ronald A. Lauder, et al. (S.D.N.Y.): Obtained the dismissal of two securities litigations brought against The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. based on allegations that Estee Lauder made false and misleading statements in order to inflate its sales and earnings.
• Highland Select Equity Fund v. Motient Corp. (Del. Ch.): Won bench trial on Section 220 claim (seeking books and records of a Delaware company) which was affirmed on appeal by the Delaware Supreme Court.
• Levin v. Kozlowski, et al. (N.Y. Supr.): Successful motion to dismiss derivative claims, under Bermuda laws, against two former outside independent directors of Tyco Int'l.
  Related Practice Areas:
  Corporate Governance
  SEC Disclosure / Securities Regulation