Geoffrey C. Jarvis

Partner

EDUCATION
  • Cornell University
    B.A. 1980 - Phi Beta Kappa
  • Harvard Law School
    J.D. 1984 - cum laude
ADMISSIONS
  • Pennsylvania
  • Delaware
  • New York
  • District of Columbia
  • United States Supreme Court
  • USCA, First Circuit
  • USCA, Second Circuit
  • USCA, Third Circuit
  • USCA, Fifth Circuit
  • United States Court of Federal Claims
  • USDC, District of Delaware
  • USDC, District of Columbia
  • USDC, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • USDC, Middle District of Pennsylvania
  • USDC, Eastern District of New York
  • USDC, Southern District of New York
PDF

Geoffrey Jarvis, a partner of the Firm, focuses on securities litigation for institutional investors. Geoff had a major role in Oxford Health Plans Securities Litigation, DaimlerChrysler Securities Litigation, and Tyco Securities Litigation all of which were among the top ten securities settlements in U.S. history at the time they were resolved, as well as a large number of other securities cases over the past 16 years. Geoff has also been involved in a number of actions before the Delaware Chancery Court, including a Delaware appraisal case that resulted in a favorable decision for the firm’s client after trial, and a Delaware appraisal case that was tried in October, argued in 2016, which is still awaiting a final decision. 

Geoff graduated from Harvard Law School in 1984, and until 1986, Geoff served as a staff attorney with the Federal Communications Commission, participating in the development of new regulatory policies for the telecommunications industry. Geoff then became an associate in the Washington office of Rogers & Wells (subsequently merged into Clifford Chance), principally devoted to complex commercial litigation in the fields of antitrust and trade regulations, insurance, intellectual property, contracts and defamation issues, as well as counseling corporate clients in diverse industries on general legal and regulatory compliance matters. Geoff was previously associated with a prominent Philadelphia litigation boutique and had first-chair assignments in cases commenced under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act and in major antitrust, First Amendment, civil rights, and complex commercial litigation, including several successful arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  From 2000 until early 2016, Geoff was a Director (Senior Counsel through 2001) at Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., where he engaged in a number of federal securities, and state fiduciary cases (primarily in Delaware), including several of the largest settlements of the past 15 years.  He also was lead trial counsel and/or associate counsel in a number of cases that were tried to a verdict (or are pending final decision).

Experience
Ongoing Cases
  • In early 2018, Kessler Topaz filed the first of seven opt-out securities fraud actions in New Jersey federal court on behalf of U.S., European, and Middle Eastern institutional investors against Perrigo and its former chief executive and chief financial officers.  These actions stem from Perrigo’s efforts to mislead investors to stave off a hostile takeover bid by pharmaceutical rival Mylan NV in 2015.  The plaintiffs allege that Perrigo failed to disclose problems concerning the company’s $4.5 billion acquisition of Omega Pharma NV, an over-the-counter healthcare company based in Belgium, and misrepresented its ability to withstand pricing pressure from the influx of competing drugs in the generic drug markets.

    On July 30, 2019, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the U.S. District Court of New Jersey denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the actions.  Discovery is ongoing.   

  • Kessler Topaz serves as co-lead counsel in a securities fraud class action brought on behalf of Allergan plc shareholders, based on the company’s participation in an industry-wide conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs.  Shareholders allege that notwithstanding Allergan’s prominent role in this illicit price-fixing scheme, the company repeatedly misrepresented to investors that it was not engaged in anticompetitive conduct—even as the company became ensnared in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and 46 state attorneys general.

    On August 6, 2019, the Honorable Katherine S. Hayden of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a lengthy opinion denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and sustaining investors’ claims in full.  The case is now in discovery.   

Representative Outcomes
  • This shareholder derivative action challenged a conflicted “roll up” REIT transaction orchestrated by Glade M. Knight and his son Justin Knight.

    The proposed transaction paid the Knights millions of dollars while paying public stockholders less than they had invested in the company. The case was brought under Virginia law, and settled just ten days before trial, with stockholders receiving an additional $32 million in merger consideration.

  • Kessler Topaz is co-counsel in an investment treaty arbitration on behalf of nearly 1000 claimants against the Republic of Cyprus before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”).  

    Claimants, nationals of Greece and Luxembourg, were all depositors or bondholders of either Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Marfin Popular Bank or Laiki Bank) or the Bank of Cyprus, and suffered substantial losses when their bonds/deposits were confiscated as part of Cyprus’ response (known as “Plan B”) to the Cypriot financial crisis. Claimants allege that Cyprus violated its obligations under two bilateral investment treaties (the Cyprus-Greece BIT and the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union – Cyprus BIT). In response to the claims filed by the Claimants, Cyprus contested ICSID’s jurisdiction to hear the dispute.  On February 7, 2020, in a 2-1 majority opinion, the ICSID Tribunal determined that it has proper jurisdiction over the dispute. The decision is significant in that it involves claims by a number of claimants that is well in excess of most other mass ICSID arbitrations (including being larger than two out of the three cases pursued by bondholders against Argentina following Argentina’s debt crisis in the 2000s). The dispute will now proceed to the merits stage.

  • Kessler Topaz is co-counsel in an investment treaty arbitration on behalf of nearly 1000 claimants against the Republic of Cyprus before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”).  

    Claimants, nationals of Greece and Luxembourg, were all depositors or bondholders of either Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Marfin Popular Bank or Laiki Bank) or the Bank of Cyprus, and suffered substantial losses when their bonds/deposits were confiscated as part of Cyprus’ response (known as “Plan B”) to the Cypriot financial crisis. Claimants allege that Cyprus violated its obligations under two bilateral investment treaties (the Cyprus-Greece BIT and the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union – Cyprus BIT). In response to the claims filed by the Claimants, Cyprus contested ICSID’s jurisdiction to hear the dispute.  On February 7, 2020, in a 2-1 majority opinion, the ICSID Tribunal determined that it has proper jurisdiction over the dispute. The decision is significant in that it involves claims by a number of claimants that is well in excess of most other mass ICSID arbitrations (including being larger than two out of the three cases pursued by bondholders against Argentina following Argentina’s debt crisis in the 2000s). The dispute will now proceed to the merits stage.

Publication

 “State Appraisal Statutes: An Underutilized Shareholder Remedy,” The Corporate Governance Advisor, May/June 2005, Vol. 13, #3.

Co-authored of “Securities Fraud, Stock Price Valuation, and Loss Causation: Toward a Corporate Finance-Based Theory of Loss Causation,” Business Lawyer, Aug. 2004.

Awards/Ranking

Benchmark Litigation Stars, 2020

Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer, 2019