Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Securities Litigation

IntroductionSign up for firm Publications  Print

One of the firm’s largest practice areas is securities litigation.  Unlike most corporate law firms, which traditionally represent only defendants, we frequently represent plaintiffs as well.  For decades, the firm has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in many of the highest-profile securities cases in the United States.  More recently, our global presence has allowed us to advise and represent clients in a broad range of complex securities disputes in major financial markets overseas, including Australia, the U.K., Europe, and Asia.  Many of our representations have involved dozens of related shareholder-derivative and class action claims.  Over the past eight years, we have achieved verdicts and settlements totaling over $47 billion for our clients in the wave of litigation that arose in the aftermath of the U.S. financial crisis.

We have litigated every type of securities case, including:

  • Claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  • Fraud and non-disclosure cases under state blue-sky laws
  • Market manipulation cases
  • Takeovers and proxy disputes
  • All holders/best-price rule tender offer litigation
  • Insider trading
  • Option disputes
  • Valuations

In securities cases, we have represented:

  • Fortune 500 companies
  • Investment banks
  • Directors and officers
  • Special committees
  • Audit committees
  • Institutional investors
  • Hedge funds
  • Financial advisors
  • Broker-dealers

We try more complex business cases than any other U.S. firm (The Lawyer 2017).  We believe this gives us a distinct advantage in the courtroom, and gives our clients an advantage during settlement negotiations, where the credible threat of an actual trial can hasten a favorable settlement.  Many securities cases involve long, complex hearings on pleading motions or requests for injunctions and other preliminary relief, where our courtroom skills are often vital to success.

Not all of our securities work involves litigation.  Clients often call upon us for general advice, including designing and conducting internal investigations into areas such as options backdating and insider trading.  Our experience and skill in interacting and negotiating with prosecutors and regulators, including those at the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the FTC, and the CFPB, means we are well positioned to handle such tasks.  Indeed, over two dozen of the firm’s partners are former prosecutors, and include former high-ranking Department of Justice lawyers and alumni of United States Attorney’s Offices. 

Back to Top

Recent Representations Print

Defense Representations:

  • The firm obtained a complete appellate victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for our clients Mickey Gooch and Colin Heffron, former Chairman and CEO of interdealer broker GFI Group.  In a unanimous decision, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling dismissing a Rule 10b-5 securities fraud case against our clients.  The court held that no reasonable investor would have relied, in making an investment decision, on the general statement in a press release that a proposed deal represented “a singular and unique opportunity to return value.” The decision brought a decisive end to a long-running case against our clients, and reaffirmed that “vague and indefinite expressions of corporate enthusiasm” are no basis for securities fraud class actions.
  • We represent Allergan and several of its current and former directors and officers in a securities class action involving claims under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, in which plaintiffs allege that Allergan misled its investors by failing to disclose that one of its former divisions was allegedly engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy.  We also represent Allergan and several of its current and former directors and officers in related opt-out actions, which are stayed pending the court’s resolution of our motion to dismiss in the class action.
  • We represent bio-tech company NantCell, Inc., and its majority stockholder, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, in an action brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by two shareholders of Altor, a company that NantCell announced it intended to acquire in a merger transaction.  Plaintiffs challenged and sought to enjoin the merger, maintaining that Altor’s directors had breached their fiduciary duties in approving the transaction with NantCell and that the merger consideration is inadequate.  Quinn Emanuel (together with Delaware counsel) defeated plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the transaction, which enabled the transaction to close on July 31, 2017.  The case continues as an appraisal and quasi-appraisal proceeding and our clients’ summary judgment motions are currently pending.
  • We successfully represented E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities LLC, along with the former and current CEOs of E*TRADE Financial, in obtaining the dismissal of a putative class action bringing claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act and having that dismissal affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The action challenged E*TRADE’s order routing practices, and alleged that E*TRADE earned tens of millions of dollars in “Payment for Order Flow” by prioritizing its receipt of rebates over the quality of execution provided to its customers, thereby violating E*TRADE’s duty of best execution.  The Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants on January 22, 2018.  On October 26, 2018, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal in a summary order.  The dismissal and affirmance were significant because two of E*TRADE’s competitors (Charles Schwab and Ameritrade) failed to secure dismissal of nearly identical suits brought by the same plaintiffs’ counsel, and one of those two cases (Ameritrade) has since been certified as a class action.
  • We represent LendingClub Corporation and certain LendingClub directors in consolidated class actions in state and federal court in California alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, in the federal case, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from allegedly misleading statements and omissions in the offering documents filed in connection with LendingClub’s 2014 IPO.  We persuaded the federal court to limit the class period for the Securities Act Section 11 claims based on an inability to trace shares purchased after a certain date back to the IPO and ultimately reached a settlement of both class actions.  We also represent LendingClub in a consolidated derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and recently obtained dismissal of two similar derivative actions that were pending in the Northern District of California. 
  • We represent two funds of the hedge fund Elliott Management in a purported $300 million-plus shareholder class action pending in New Jersey state court arising from the 2006 take-private merger of Metrologic Instruments.  Plaintiffs allege that Elliott, as a minority shareholder in Metrologic at the time of the merger, breached fiduciary duties that it purportedly owed to Plaintiffs as fellow minority shareholders in Metrologic.  Quinn Emanuel took over as lead counsel after New Jersey’s Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Elliott from the case on summary judgment.  We successfully moved to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand, then filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, along with a motion to reopen expert discovery.  As we prepared for trial, we reached a settlement that is subject to court approval.
  • We represent Australian technology company GetSwift Ltd. in its defense against multiple shareholder class actions recently filed in the Federal Court of Australia.
  • As part of our multifaceted representation of Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht, both in Brazil and the United States, we are counsel to Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A. (“CNO”), and Odebrecht Engenharia & Construcao S.A., the holding and operating companies that run Odebrecht’s multi-billion-dollar construction business, as well as Odebrecht Finance Ltd. (“OFL”), which issued hundreds of millions of dollars in notes during the period from 2012 to 2015, in separate securities fraud suits brought by DoubleLine Capital LP and related funds, and by the Washington State Investment Board (“WSIB”).  Plaintiffs in the two matters allege cumulative note purchases of approximately $200 million and allege representations in CNO’s public statements and financial disclosures were false and misleading because of Odebrecht’s participation in bribery and bid-rigging schemes to obtain domestic and international construction contracts.  The investigation into these activities—dubbed “Lava Jato” (“Car Wash”) in Brazil—resulted in, among other things, a 19-year prison sentence for Odebrecht’s former, eponymous CEO, and a $2.6 billion penalty from the U.S. DOJ.  We have mounted a vigorous defense at the pleading stage, thus far resulting in dismissal of large portions of DoubleLine’s complaint (which has now been amended).  The motion to dismiss WSIB’s claim remains pending.
  • We recently won the last of many victories ending 15 years of securities litigation, including two cases seeking more than $2 billion from former Peregrine Systems Chairman (and former owner of the San Diego Padres) John Moores.  After employee financial statement fraud at Peregrine came to light in 2002, 11 employees went to jail, including the CEO who died in prison.  Mr. Moores, an outside director, retained us in 2003 after he was targeted as the most solvent defendant in federal class actions and multiple state court filings.  We disposed of the last of these, an opt-out litigation, in 2017 – fittingly, on grounds of statute of repose.
  • We represented Leon Pasternak, the Deputy Chairman of Australian radio company Southern Cross, in a regulatory investigation of Mr Pasternak’s purchase of Southern Cross shares, which the regulator alleged constituted insider trading. After almost 4 years of investigations, we obtained confirmation that the regulator would not take enforcement action.
  • We represented Marvell Technology Group in consolidated class actions and a derivative action that alleged $1 billion in market losses after the company announced an audit committee investigation and settlement of significant patent litigation. We were able to obtain dismissal of two of plaintiff’s three theories on motions to dismiss, and to narrow the class significantly at the certification stage, resulting in a $72.5 million settlement.  After our motion to dismiss was granted, we were also able to convince the derivative plaintiff to agree to dismiss its claim with prejudice in exchange for a cost waiver. We also obtained dismissal with prejudice of a prior class and derivative action alleging the company had failed to settle or otherwise avoid a $1.54 billion judgment in the underlying patent litigation.
  • We represented VeriSign, Inc. in a suit brought by a leading class-action plaintiffs’ firm alleging violations of Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiff alleged that VeriSign had misrepresented the likelihood that the Department of Commerce would approve the renewal of VeriSign’s key contract with the ICANN, and that VeriSign made false financial projections.  We filed an immediate motion to dismiss prior to appointment of lead plaintiff and challenged plaintiff’s use of investigators to interview VeriSign’s former employees.  Within months, we persuaded plaintiff to abandon the case.
  • We achieved a complete dismissal of all claims against Odebrecht S.A. in securities fraud suits in New York and Washington, D.C. based on jurisdictional grounds. The claims stemmed from Odebrecht’s participation in the massive Petrobras bribery scheme that sent shockwaves throughout Brazil.  Unlike our client, the other alleged participants in the bribery scheme, including Petrobras, were unable to achieve dismissal of the claims against them in these cases.
  • We represented the former President and Chief Operating Officer of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. in federal securities class action and shareholder derivative suits and an action by the SEC; the court in the derivative action granted our motion to dismiss, and we also obtained dismissal of our client from the federal class action.  The SEC action resolved via a consent judgment under which our client admitted to no wrongdoing.
  • We represented Pitney Bowes Inc. and two of its officers in the District of Connecticut in a securities fraud class action alleging misstatements and omissions relating to the company’s 2012 revenue and earnings projections.  We obtained dismissal of all claims, with prejudice, after taking over the case from previous counsel.
  • We represented several Charles Schwab-related entities and individuals in a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action related to the Schwab YieldPlus Fund.  Pursuant to the recommendation of a special litigation committee, we moved for, and obtained, dismissal of the derivative and class action claims on summary judgment.  The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
  • We represented Spectra Energy Corp. in five class actions in the Southern District of Texas, challenging the sufficiency of the disclosures in the proxy for the merger of Spectra with Enbridge, Inc.  Working closely with transaction counsel, we mooted plaintiffs’ disclosure claims with amended disclosures, and refused their demand for additional disclosures.  Plaintiffs abandoned the action, filing a voluntarily notice of dismissal prior to the deadline for Spectra’s motion to dismiss.  We also represented Spectra in a related shareholder class action bringing a claim for common law breach of the duty of disclosure claim in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Plaintiff in that case likewise voluntarily dismissed his complaint.
  • We represented Live Nation in a matter filed by a class of Ticketmaster shareholders in Los Angeles County Superior Court challenging proxy disclosures in connection with the Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger.  We persuaded the court that Live Nation’s demurrer should be sustained; with our motion for sanctions pending, plaintiffs chose not to amend and to dismiss Live Nation from the lawsuit, sparing Live Nation the burden and expense of a preliminary injunction battle before the companies’ shareholder meetings.
  • We represented Northrop Grumman in various consolidated class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and various federal and state securities laws violations.  The cases were dismissed with no class certification and affirmed on appeal.
  • We represented a major investment bank in the In re AIG Securities Litigation, forcing the plaintiffs to withdraw a multi-billion dollar securities class action prior to the filing of a threatened motion to dismiss.
  • We have served as counsel in various stock option matters, including internal investigations, SEC, DOJ, and shareholder derivative actions, for Maxim Integrated Products, Barnes & Noble, and Terayon; for the Special Committee in Apple; and for individual officers of Brocade, Marvell, MRV Communications, and Computer Sciences Corp.
  • We represented an officer of JB Oxford/National Clearing Corporation in an action by the SEC, and achieved a low five-figure settlement on the eve of trial of the first federal market timing/late trading action to approach trial.
  • We represented an internet-based entertainment company in a federal criminal investigation into allegations of securities fraud made in a parallel civil lawsuit. We convinced the government not to prosecute.  We had previously represented this client in multiple civil securities fraud and fraudulent transfer lawsuits.
  • We represented a prominent hedge fund in connection with an SEC investigation into the fund’s valuation and subsequent sale of certain illiquid energy assets.  We obtained a complete “walk away” from the SEC despite the SEC having invested several years and substantial resources in investigating the fund’s conduct.   We served as company counsel to Tier Technologies in an audit committee investigation arising out of an accounting restatement.

Plaintiff Representations:

  • A federal judge has given final approval to settlements with the final defendants in our ISDAfix case, which was brought on behalf of investors such as insurance companies, pension funds, hedge funds, and other sophisticated actors.  That brings the total recoveries in the case, which concerns the rigging of a financial benchmark used to determine the settlement value of certain financial derivatives, to over $500 million.  We built the case from the ground-up after noticing anomalies in the data, before the government even acted.  The successful settlement and then certification of the class was the result of years of dogged, groundbreaking work.  We had to find traders explicitly admitting they were interested in manipulating the benchmark.  We then had to match that admission to can actual trade by the right person, at the right time, in the right direction.  We then had to demonstrate we could show that those acts damaged class members, some of whom may have only traded hours or even days later.  The Court said that this was the “the most complicated case” he ever faced, and that he could “not really imagine” how much more complicated “it would have been if I didn’t have counsel who had done as admirable a job in briefing it and arguing it as” we did. 
  • In a truly historic partnership between a regulator and a private firm, we represented the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), as Conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in connection with its investigation and litigation of nearly $200 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities. As widely reported, this was one of the most significant court actions taken by any federal regulator since the advent of the mortgage crisis, and the single largest set of actions ever filed by a governmental entity.  In one case, following a nearly four-week trial, we prevailed against both Nomura and RBS in the Southern District of New York, and recovered over $800 million.  In September 2017, the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and trial rulings.  We have now recovered over $23 billion in settlements and trial judgments in these actions, including most recently in the RBS action, where we settled FHFA’s claims for $5.5 billion, one of the largest recoveries ever in a securities action.
  • We have a large practice representing other clients that purchased RMBS. For example, we represented Allstate Insurance Company in eight lawsuits, Prudential Insurance Company in twelve lawsuits, Capital Ventures International in two lawsuits; and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company in nine lawsuits.  Now successfully resolved, these cases against the world’s largest investment banks, including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank, were filed in various state and federal courts, and involved federal and state statutory and state common-law claims, seeking recovery for losses arising from misrepresentations and omissions regarding the underlying loan collateral.
  • We represented PIMCO, Western Asset Management Co., and dozens of other plaintiffs that hired us to pursue federal securities claims arising from the multi-year kick-back and bribery at the Brazilian state-owned oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”). After less than a year of litigation, we obtained very favorable confidential settlements for each of our clients as part of $353 million paid and reserved by the company.  
  • We represented Solus Alternative Asset Management LP against GSO Capital Partners (“GSO”) and Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (“Hovnanian), in a suit arising from GSO’s agreement to lend money to Hovnanian in exchange for Hovnanian agreeing to default on a portion of its debt. The default would trigger a credit event on credit default swaps, which would require Solus to pay millions of dollars in payments and would yield GSO millions of dollars in CDS payments.  In addition, certain aspects of the transaction between GSO and Hovnanian were explicitly designed to set the price of the payout required from Solus in the case of a credit event.  Solus alleged that this agreement violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and that GSO had tortiously interfered with Solus’s prospective economic advantage.  The case settled in May 2018; as part of the settlement, Hovnanian cured the agreed-upon default, thereby avoiding the threatened credit event.
  • We represent two funds managed by Rimrock Capital Management LLC involving California Blue Sky claims against Jefferies LLC and Jefferies International LLC for false and misleading statements made in connection with Rimrock’s purchase of €27,500,000 in notes issued by the Italian waste management company, Gruppo Waste Italia. The court recently overruled defendants’ demurrer almost in its entirety, preserving all of Rimrock’s claims.  The case is now proceeding in discovery. 
  • We are actively litigating seven remaining actions (of 75 originally filed) brought by the ResCap Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”) against mortgage originators that sold defective loans to Residential Funding Company (“RFC”). The cases involve claims based on breaches of the representations and warranties originators gave RFC in conjunction with the loan purchases.  These defective loans, later securitized by RFC, caused losses and liabilities, which ultimately forced RFC into bankruptcy.  We successfully defended motions to dismiss on numerous grounds at the outset of the litigation and helped establish a growing plaintiff-friendly body of RMBS caselaw.  The Trust has now reached actual or agreed settlements providing recoveries in excess of $1.1 billion.  Most recently, we obtained a jury verdict that will entitle us to in excess of $60 million, including interest, after a 16-day trial (and less than three hours of deliberations) against former LendingTree unit Home Loan Center. 
  • We represent Prudential, the City of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Darby Financial Products and Capital Ventures International, and Salix Capital in claims arising from major banks’ manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor). Defendants include BofA, Barclays, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, RBC, RBS, and UBS.  Plaintiffs allege that by deliberately suppressing Libor, the payments on and value of investments tied to that rate were reduced and constituted fraud, breach of and interference with contracts, and violated the Sherman Act.  Our clients’ common law claims were upheld in part by the district court and the plaintiffs’ group, including our firm, succeeded in convincing the Second Circuit to partially overturn the prior dismissal of the antitrust claims.
  • We represent Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the Genesee County (Michigan) Employees’ Retirement System as co-lead class counsel in high-profile, multi-district litigation against a dozen international banks and co-conspirators challenging anticompetitive conduct in the market for interest rate swaps. In July 2017, we partially defeated Defendants’ motion to dismiss as the court found that plaintiffs had alleged a plausible conspiracy.  The case is currently in fact discovery.
  • We represent Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, Orange County Employees Retirement System, Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association, and Torus Capital, LLC as co-lead counsel on behalf of the class who entered into stock loan transactions with six major banks that serve as prime brokers of stock loans. We allege that the six defendants conspired to overcharge investors and wrongfully control the $1.7 trillion stock loan market, obstructing competition that would benefit both stock lenders and borrowers.  In August 2018, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss in their entirety.  The case has now entered discovery.
  • We represent Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund, MASTERINVEST Kapitalanlage GmbH, Uniqa Capital Markets GMBH, and Torus Capital, LLC, and are co-lead class counsel on behalf of investors in U.S. Treasury securities and related instruments, who allege that 22 major financial institutions conspired to artificially drive up the yield of Treasury Securities and, correspondingly, drive down the prices of those Treasuries for their own benefit.  Briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss was completed in May 2018 and is awaiting a decision. 
  • We are co-lead class counsel in an action on behalf of and represent a group of investors harmed when several banks conspired to manipulate the market for gold and gold-related investments traded on COMEX and other exchanges. Defendants include the panel banks that make up the “London Gold Fixing,” a daily process that was supposed to involve a competitive auction among the panel banks, but instead, served as a platform for illegal price-fixing.  Defendant Deutsche Bank settled in 2015 for $60 million and the settlement was preliminary approved in 2016.  In October 2016, the court largely rejected Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint after determining that the extensive economic analysis provided in the complaint rendered the claims plausible.  The remaining defendants are The Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays, HSBC, Société Générale, and The London Gold Market Fixing Limited. The court has previously upheld claims against the Fixing banks and LGMF, but has recently granted a motion to dismiss by UBS (who was not on the Fixing panel).  Discovery will likely commence in late 2018.
  • We are co-lead class counsel in an action on behalf of investors harmed when a group of banks and their traders conspired to manipulate the market for sovereign, supranational, and agency (SSA) bonds. Defendants Bank of America and Deutsche Bank have already agreed to settle the case, and the court granted preliminary approval for both settlements in early March 2018.  A further amended complaint will be filed in October 2018 against the remaining defendants.
  • We recently filed a class action complaint alleging manipulation of the VIX – CBOE Volatility Index, an index of market volatility widely know as the market’s “fear gauge.”  The complaint alleges that manipulation resulted in harm to investors in VIX Options, VIX Futures, and other VIX-related financial products. In June 2018, our action was consolidated with several other cases in the Northern District of Illinois.  Quinn Emanuel was appointed co-lead counsel for the class of investors in August 2018.  An amended class action complaint will be filed soon.
  • We represent a class of shareholders against AMP Limited in class action proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of New South Wales relating to losses suffered by AMP shareholders resulting from AMP’s recent admissions of misconduct at the Financial Services Royal Commission.
  • We represented the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) as lead counsel litigating LBHI’s objections to claims by Citibank, N.A. and affiliates (“Citibank”) related to the close-out and valuation of tens of thousands of derivatives following Lehman’s bankruptcy in September 2008. Under governing ISDA Master Agreements, Lehman’s trading counterparties were directed to determine the value of their derivatives trades following Lehman’s bankruptcy.  LBHI’s objections sought a significant reduction to the amounts claimed by Citibank, which totaled more than $2 billion, relating to approximately thirty thousand derivatives trades on a variety of grounds including that Citibank failed to act in a commercially reasonable manner when valuing the derivatives in question.  Quinn Emanuel engaged in almost five years of fact and expert discovery involving more than 1.4 million documents, thirty expert witnesses, and approximately 170 fact and expert depositions in addition to briefing summary judgment and pre-trial motions.  After 42 days of trial over the course of four months, at around the expected halfway point in trial, LBHI announced that it had reached a settlement with Citibank that will return $1.74 billion to Lehman’s creditors.  The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement in October 2017.
  • We represent Ambac Assurance Corp. in New York State Court. Ambac, a monoline financial guaranty insurer, wrapped a number of RMBS transactions for Countrywide Home Loans.  After learning of certain misrepresentations by Countrywide in connection with those transactions, Ambac brought suit for breach of contract and fraud.  In June 2018, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed Ambac’s ability to recover on both of its claims.
  • We represent several parties, including KKR Credit Advisors and Canyon Capital Advisors, in connection with suits involving state and federal strict liability securities claims against Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and other participants in equity offerings for SunEdison, Inc. and TerraForm Global, Inc. The claims relate to the IPO and alleged misstatements and omissions in the offering materials.  The consolidated actions have partially settled and are ongoing.
  • We represent the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in its application for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in a German lawsuit against Volkswagen AG (“VWAG”) relating to the “dieselgate” emissions scandal. CalSTRS, along with many other Quinn Emanuel clients, sued VWAG for violations of German securities laws and sought documents from VWAG’s US affiliate, Volkswagen Group of America.
  • We are currently litigating multiple cases representing trustees or securities administrators on behalf of various RMBS Trusts.  Two of the cases were brought on behalf of four Home Equity Mortgage Trust (“HEMT”) trusts, adverse to Credit Suisse.  Another case is included in the Part 60 RMBS cases currently pending before Justice Friedman on behalf of a Natixis trust, adverse to Natixis.  These cases, colloquially known as “put-back” actions, stem from alleged breaches by the defendants of representations and warranties in the relevant transaction documents concerning the mortgage loans underlying the trusts, and defendants’ subsequent failure to re-purchase those defective loans, as they were required to do under the operative contracts, and collectively involve claims that exceed $2 billion.
  • We represented note purchasers, including GoldenTree Asset Management LP, in their action to recover more than €1.8 billion in damages arising from misrepresentations in the sale of notes and siphoning of assets from a debtor whose only asset is a majority interest in a lead conglomerate. Both the debtor and lead conglomerate are controlled by Howard Meyers, whose wrongful conduct rendered the debtor insolvent and unable to pay the €1.6 billion in debt that matured in March 2017.  The claims we filed include (i) fraud based on earnings numbers that were materially inflated due to illegal cartel activity; (ii) fraudulent transfers based on illegal dividend, tax, and other payments; (iii) breach of fiduciary duties based on siphoning assets; (iv) RICO violations; and (v) alter ego. 
  • We represented MBIA Insurance Corp. in an action brought against J.P. Morgan Securities (“JP Morgan”) as successor-in-interest to Bear Stearns, who served as underwriter for one of the RMBS transactions. MBIA sued JP Morgan for fraud.  Following extensive discovery, two summary judgment motions, and one appeal by JP Morgan, the parties settled the matter, to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, in May 2017.
  • We represented South Tryonin a lawsuit seeking to force the collateral manager of a Triaxx Asset Management CDO to sell over $500 million in defaulted RMBS. South Tryon moved for summary judgment at the outset of the case arguing that the relevant contract unambiguously required the sale.  The District Court ruled in our favor on that motion and ordered the Collateral Manager to liquidate the defaulted collateral. The District Court, and then the Second Circuit, denied the Collateral Manager’s attempt to stay the judgment. Finally, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in its entirety.
  • We represented plaintiff Lansuppe Feeder, LLC in a case involving Lansuppe’s effort to direct the Trustee for a CDO to liquidate the CDO’s collateral and distribute the proceeds over the objection of junior noteholders who claimed that the liquidation would violate the Investment Company Act.  We convinced the Southern District of New York to take up the dispute despite the existence of an earlier-filed suit brought by the junior noteholders in another jurisdiction.  We then obtained a favorable decision on summary judgment directing the Trustee to proceed with the liquidation and distribute the liquidation proceeds to investors, including our client.
  • We represented shareholders in a dispute involving the sale of Plycos, LLC. After the board unanimously approved a sale process, two out of four directors rejected all offers received by the board, making it impossible for our clients to sell their shares.  Although a court had not previously addressed the situation presented in this case—applying Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986) where the board rejects all offers after a completed sale process—we were successful in pleading direct claims by shareholders under Revlon arising from this unique fact pattern, and the case settled in early 2017.
  • We represented UMB Bank, N.A. as trustee on behalf of noteholders, in a case against Airplanes Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust that involved a dispute over the improper reserving by Airplanes of $190 million that otherwise would have gone to noteholders. We obtained a favorable judgment on the pleadings with the Court finding that the $190 million reserve was improper and in violation of the indenture.
  • We obtained an award of nearly $80 million for our client Rosen Capital Partners against Merrill Lynch, which The Wall Street Journal described as one of the largest investor arbitration awards ever issued by a FINRA arbitration panel.  In December 2011, the Los Angeles Superior Court confirmed the award and in February 2013, the California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and rejected Merrill Lynch’s arguments seeking to vacate the award.  The judgment, which by then amounted to over $89 million, was collected in full.
  • We obtained, with co-counsel, a settlement of more than $6 billion for the Estate of Washington Mutual, Inc. in litigation against JPMorgan Chase, which involved disputes over billions of dollars in structured trust preferred securities.
  • We secured settlements of securities and other claims in excess of $150 million for our client, Chapter 11 debtor Superior National Insurance Group.  Superior National was a holding company that purchased four workers compensation insurance companies from Foundation Health Corporation (now HealthNet, Inc.).  The core allegation was that Foundation defrauded Superior by not disclosing certain financial and claims information that undermined its actuaries’ reserve opinions.

See Our Securities Class Action Representations

Back to Top