Edward Totino focuses his practice on securities litigation, class actions and complex commercial litigation. In such litigation, he represents financial institutions, investment funds, and public companies. Mr. Totino was named a Southern California Super Lawyer in the area of securities litigation for multiple years. He has been rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell.

In 2006, Mr. Totino received the prestigious Burton Award for Legal Achievement for the article "Litigation Strategies: Managing Litigation Risk and Addressing Investor Concerns." The Burton Award is dedicated to the enrichment and refinement of writing in the legal profession. Every year these awards honor lawyers who use clear, concise language to comment on important legal issues. The awards are presented by the Burton Foundation, a nonprofit cultural and academic organization devoted to promoting the legal profession. "Litigation Strategies" originally appeared in PIPES: A Guide to Private Investments in Public Equity, published in December 2005. In 2007, Mr. Totino received a Highly Commended Award from the Emerald Literati Network for the article "Recent Developments in Hedge Fund Enforcement and Regulation by the SEC under the Leadership of Chairman Cox Suggest that He May Not Be the Free Market Advocate Everyone Once Thought He Was." The article originally appeared in the Journal of Investment Compliance in 2006.

On an annual basis, Mr. Totino presents on a panel on Class Actions as part of a Los Angeles County Bar Association program for new attorneys. The other members of the panel are a plaintiff’s class action lawyer and either a state or federal judge.

Reported Cases

• Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2010). Clarified standards for examining securities investments by ERISA fiduciaries
• ITIS Holdings Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, 329 Fed. Appx. 299 (2d Cir. 2009). Affirmed sanction award dismissing securities fraud case
• Brewer v. Cootes Drive LLC, 98 Fed. Appx. 41 (2d Cir. 2004). Clarified appealability of orders in consolidated actions
• Brennan v. Tremco Incorporated, 25 Cal.4th 310 (2001). Established the rule that a malicious prosecution action cannot be based on a prior action that was resolved by arbitration
• Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163 (2000). Clarified unfair competition law

Recent Significant Representations

• Represented the founder of a public company to recover damages caused by the company's interference with the founder’s ability to sell his shares
• Defended a private investment fund from claims of securities fraud and insider trading
• Defended a securities broker-dealer in multiple proceedings involving auction rate securities including arbitrations and a class action
• Defended a securities broker-dealer, a business process outsourcing company, and a payroll company in privacy rights class actions
• Represented an SEC receiver in connection with recovering assets involved in a PONZI scheme
• Defended an international bank in a dispute over a €500 million bond
• Represented a securities broker-dealer in a dispute over a $30 million collateralized debt obligation
• Defended numerous private investment funds and their advisors from claims of securities fraud and stock manipulation
• Represented an international bank in multiple actions arising from an international trade finance dispute
• Defended a defense contractor against a claim for breach of a stock option agreement