ACHIEVEMENTS

Case Successes
Featured Cases
  • Bank shareholders sue in UK for record loss

    Working with local counsel, we represent shareholders in a UK case alleging that in 2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) misled investors about its exposure to subprime-related assets, collateralized debt obligations, and the inflated value of its assets. When the misrepresentations came to light, RBS lost £44 billion of its market value and many RBS shareholders lost substantially all their investments. RBS’s subsequent write-downs and reported full-year net loss for 2008 represented the largest loss ever for a UK-based company and the largest for any commercial bank in the world. Subsequently, the UK government bailed out RBS on three occasions, becoming an 82% shareholder of the company. The UK High Court has combined our clients’ claim with those of several other groups, and trial is slated for December 2016. 

  • Dutch pension fund challenges U.S. merger

    We represent Dutch National Pension fund PGGM Vermogensbeheer B.V., in an action against Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) alleging that HP and its officers and directors made false and misleading statements relating to the $11 billion acquisition of Autonomy Corporation plc. The plantiff alleges that HP knew or should have known that Autonomy was worth considerably less than the purchase price, and that HP shareholders were harmed by the fraud.  A settlement for $100 million was recently announced and is awaiting Court approval.

  • Investors assert constitutional claim against U.S. government

    In a matter with significant constitutional implications, we have filed actions against the U.S. government in federal district court and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on behalf of shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been under government conservatorship since 2008, and both cases challenge the government’s August 2012 decision to impose a “net worth sweep,” whereby all of the companies’ net income is paid to the government each quarter. In the Federal Claims action, our clients allege that the net worth sweep constitutes a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, and that they are entitled to just compensation for the loss of their economic rights. In the district court case, our clients allege that the net worth sweep violates their common law rights and entitles them to damages. Both cases are pending.

  • Investors file direct actions in Brazil corruption scandal

    We have filed opt-out securities fraud actions in Manhattan federal court on behalf of several U.S. and European institutional investors against Petrobras, the Brazilian oil conglomerate, arising out of a decade-long bribery and kickback scheme that has been called the largest corruption scandal in Brazil’s history. The action alleges that Petrobras concealed bribes to senior officers and government officials and improperly capitalized these bribes as assets on its books in order to inflate the value of the company's refineries. 

  • JP Morgan/London Whale: Pursuing "London Whale" losses

    Representing Swedish National Pension Fund AP7 in a case against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan) arising from the infamous London Whale scandal. 

    Our clients allege that JPMorgan and various individuals made or authorized false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about risk management policies and proprietary trading activities—activities that led to more than $6 billion in losses due to massive proprietary bets placed on exotic credit derivatives by the so-called “London Whale,” a trader in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office. 

  • L.A. pension funds sue financial info leader for fraud

    We represent the fire and police pension systems of Los Angeles in securities class action litigation against financial information company Bankrate, Inc. (Bankrate). Our clients allege that between October 27, 2011 and October 9, 2014, Bankrate issued materially false and misleading statements that artificially inflated its financial metrics. In addition, Bankrate incorporated the misstatements by reference in documents underlying a March 2014 public offering of 16 million shares of common stock. When the misrepresentations came to light, Bankrate stock prices dropped by more than 30 per cent. The case is pending in federal district court in Florida.

  • Landmark victory lets London Stock Exchange buyers sue in U.S.

    In a multidistrict case stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil-rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, we represent six institutional investors that purchased securities of the rig’s owner, BP, PLC (BP) on the London Stock Exchange. Our clients allege that after the explosion, BP concealed the extent of the oil spill and misrepresented its compliance with safety protocols. We successfully opposed BP's motion to dismiss, obtaining a landmark decision in Texas federal court that allows our clients to pursue English law fraud claims in U.S. court. The ruling was the first by a U.S. court to uphold foreign law securities fraud claims since the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd, which limited the reach of federal securities laws to U.S. transactions.  The cases are currently stayed pending certain appeals in the class action case in the same Court.

  • Plaintiffs in Dutch subprime case lost up to 90% of investments

    In a case arising out of the subprime mortgage crisis, our clients are suing Fortis Bank, N.V. (Fortis) and its successor companies BNP Paribas and Ageas NL for fraud in connection with the company’s failed 2007 attempt to acquire Dutch bank ABN Amro Holding NV (ABN Amro). Specifically, our clients claim that Fortis misrepresented the value of its collateralized debt obligations, its exposure to subprime-related mortgage-backed securities, and the extent to which the decision to acquire ABN Amro jeopardized its solvency. After the acquisition failed, Fortis encountered financial difficulties and broke up in the fall of 2008.  Its investors lost as much as 90% of the value of their investments. Our lawsuit survived rigorous jurisdictional challenges in the Netherlands Court of Appeals, and proceedings on the merits are pending.

  • Plaintiffs seek recovery in Forex manipulation

    Launched the first class action brought on behalf of Bank of New York Mellon Corp’s (BNY Mellon) Forex (FX) trading clients.

    On behalf of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Pension Fund, we alleged that BNY Mellon secretly manipulated its clients’ FX transactions in order to unlawfully enrich itself— breaching its duties of prudence, loyalty, and exclusive purpose—and sought to recover proceeds of the unfair trading practices. After extensive discovery, including more than 100 depositions and the submission of multiple expert reports, the court granted preliminary approval for a $335 million settlement in April 2015.

  • Recovery tops state record

    We represent individual and institutional investors in a federal securities action against Duke Energy, Inc. (Duke) and certain of its executives arising from Duke’s 2012 merger with Progress Energy and the subsequent ouster of Duke’s new CEO. The $146.25 million settlement, awaiting Court approval, is the largest federal securities recovery in North Carolina history and one of the top five securities fraud recoveries in the 4th Circuit. 

  • Sellers allege secret tender offer plot for Botox company

    In a case raising novel, complex issues of U.S. tender offer law and regulation, we are co-lead counsel to a putative class of former shareholders of Allergan, Inc., (Allergan), maker of the popular drug Botox. Plaintiffs, including the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, allege that Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (Valeant) and Pershing Square Capital Management (Pershing Square) improperly purchased Allergan securities while secretly planning to make a tender offer for Allergan. As a result, the selling stockholders were deprived of the increase in Allergan stock prices that occurred when Valeant and Pershing Square disclosed their intentions. The action is pending in California federal court.  

  • Trial evidence shows Dole buyout was unfair

    In March 2015, we represented shareholders as co-lead counsel in the nine-day trial of the Chairman, CEO and controlling shareholder of Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole), David Murdock (Murdock), other Dole directors and the company’s longtime former financial advisor, Deutsche Bank. The case, which is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, stems from the 2013 management buyout of Dole led by Murdock. Evidence presented at trial shows that the defendants unfairly and covertly structured Dole’s asset sales and credit agreements to benefit Murdock and further his buyout plans; that the transaction substantially undervalued Dole’s common stock, and that it was accomplished through a deficient process. Plaintiffs are seekinga higher price per share than what was paid by Dole in the transaction; a verdict is expected in the fall of 2015.

"I know you know that I take this responsibility seriously and try to think hard about these issues. And I do want to compliment class counsel. I think that you behaved responsibly here and gave very good service to the class. They were well served by you."

The Honorable Denise Cote - United States District Court for the Southern District of New York