Nathan A. Hasiuk

Associate

EDUCATION
  • Temple University
    B.A. 2008, summa cum laude
  • Temple University Beasley School of Law
    J.D. 2012
ADMISSIONS
  • Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey
  • USDC, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • USDC, District of New Jersey
PDF

Nathan A. Hasiuk, an associate of the Firm, concentrates his practice on securities fraud matters.  Nathan represents sophisticated institutional and individual investors in complex litigation brought under the federal securities laws. Nathan’s experience includes both class actions and direct actions.

Prior to joining the Firm, Nathan served as an Assistant Public Defender in Philadelphia, where he successfully represented hundreds of clients at the trial level. Nathan’s experience includes serving as lead counsel in several significant jury trials. Nathan’s extensive trial experience informs his current practice on behalf of defrauded investors.

Experience
Ongoing Cases
  • In August 2018, Kessler Topaz was appointed to represent a putative class of investors in consolidated actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Acuity Brands Inc., its former CEO, Vernon J. Nagel, and its former CFO, Richard K. Reece.  Following an extensive investigation, in October 2018 Kessler Topaz filed a complaint alleging that Defendants failed to disclose to investors their knowledge of the adverse impact of increased competition in the LED market on Acuity’s financial performance and also that Defendants falsely touted Acuity’s business relationship with its largest customer, Home Depot, while failing to disclose that increased LED competition was eroding Acuity’s sales to Home Depot.  The complaint further alleged that Defendants sought to conceal the negative impact of competition through aggressive sales practices, including widespread quarter-end shipments.

    On August 12, 2019, U.S. District Judge Mark H. Cohen sustained in part Plaintiff’s claims, finding that the complaint adequately alleged that Defendants knowingly or recklessly issued false or misleading statements concerning the impact of increased competition on Acuity and with respect to the strength of Acuity’s sales to Home Depot.  Discovery is ongoing.

  • In September 2018, Kessler Topaz was appointed to represent a putative class of investors in consolidated actions in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against pharmaceutical giant Celgene and several of its executive officers.  This securities fraud case involves Celgene’s concealment of a critical drug metabolite discovered during the clinical development of the multiple sclerosis drug Ozanimod and the company’s ongoing misrepresentations to investors that Ozanimod was on track to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pursuant to the company’s timeline.  Unbeknownst to the public, the discovery of the metabolite required substantial, additional studies mandated by the FDA that imperiled the timeline for regulatory approval.  After Celgene filed a facially deficient new drug application with the FDA, the agency issued a rare, “refuse-to-file” letter, causing investors to question the company’s prior assurances and the company’s stock price to plummet. 

    On December 19, 2019, U.S. District Judge John Michael Vasquez issued a 49-page opinion sustaining the shareholders’ claims.  The case is now in discovery.  

Representative Outcomes
  • This securities fraud class action in Vermont federal court involved allegations that Green Mountain and its former chief executive officer and chief financial officer misrepresented the true state of demand for the coffee giant’s products.  The investor class alleged that the defendants concealed the company’s ballooning inventory and slackening demand in order to prop up Green Mountain’s stock price, while the company’s CEO and CFO were engaged in massive insider selling, reaping tens of millions of dollars at the expense of shareholders.    

    The case was resolved in 2018 for $36.5 million, following a significant appellate victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which reversed the district court’s initial dismissal of the action and provided important guidance on the role of insider trading allegations in establishing scienter (or intent to defraud) under the federal securities laws.  This is believed to be the largest settlement of a securities suit in the history of the District of Vermont.