Skip to main content
|

Add a bookmark to get started

Bookmarks info
John J. Clarke

John J. Clarke Jr.

Partner
New York
About

John Clarke is the previous chair of the firm's corporate and securities litigation practice and has several decades of experience leading the defense of complex disputes involving securities, merger transactions, trust indentures, structured transactions, and stockholder derivative, bankruptcy, and fraudulent transfer claims. He has appeared for clients as lead counsel in federal and state courts across the nation, including the US Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh, and DC Circuits, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the Supreme Court of Delaware.

John has been recognized for securities litigation by both Chambers USA and The Legal 500 United States. Clients say he is a "true expert in securities" who "is knowledgeable, strategic, and thinks outside of the box" and is "smart, creative and meticulous in his approach." They also say he is "a very strong litigator" who is "great on his feet in the courtroom and an excellent writer."

The knowledge and experience John gained in financial institution litigation following the global financial crisis led to his service as chairman of the Banking Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, where he led the Committee's advocacy work as amicus curiae and in legislative and regulatory comment letters.

 
Areas of FocusFinancial ServicesLife SciencesCorporateLitigation, Arbitration and InvestigationsMergers and Acquisitions
Bar admissionsNew YorkConnecticut
CourtsSupreme Court of the United StatesUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Tenth CircuitUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New YorkUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of New YorkUnited States District Court for the Northern District of New YorkUnited States District Court for the District of Connecticut

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

  • Leading the representation of a global biopharmaceutical company in an action for alleged breach of an indenture governing a series of more than 700 million publicly traded contingent value rights issued in a strategic merger. The plaintiff alleges that our client breached its covenant to use "diligent efforts" to obtain FDA approval of a new product candidate in time to meet the payment contingency for the CVRs. We obtained dismissal of the action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged trustee plaintiff was not appointed in accordance with requirements of the governing indenture. An appeal from that decision is pending in the Second Circuit
  • Representing the same biopharmaceutical company and its directors and officers in several securities actions alleging that disclosures relating to the CVRs in the joint merger proxy statement, press releases, and earnings calls were false or misleading because the company allegedly never intended to obtain FDA approval in time for the CVR payment contingency to be met. All three case were dismissed. The Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated federal case
  • Representing a hydrogen power company in a consolidated stockholder derivative action alleging its directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a financial restatement and the waiver of conditions to vesting under a customer's warrant agreement. The Delaware Court of Chancery granted our motion to dismiss for failure to plead demand futility. Plaintiffs have appealed.
  • Representing the same hydrogen power company in a putative class action asserting claims for securities violations based on forward-looking statements concerning the company's revenue expectations and anticipated future hydrogen production capacity. The district court granted our motion to dismiss; briefing is ongoing on our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
  • Represented the underwriters in an alleged class action asserting claims under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act based on allegations that the CEO of a biotech company falsified data in academic research papers. The district court granted the underwriters' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. A global settlement was reached soon thereafter with no contribution from our clients
  • Represented a national personal lines insurance company and two of its senior officers in a securities class action challenging statements concerning the reasons for an unexpected increase in auto claim frequency. Successfully obtained Seventh Circuit reversal of class certification in an opinion that later was followed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its Goldman Sachs decision
  • Represented the board of directors of the same company in stockholder derivative actions based on the same allegations. Obtained dismissal of first-filed action in state court for failure to allege demand futility, which was affirmed on appeal; obtained an interim stay of second-filed federal action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which was followed later by res judicata dismissal
  • Represented the underwriter defendants in an alleged class action under the Securities Act challenging offering materials issued by two oil-and-gas royalty trusts. The court granted our motion to dismiss based on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the notice and lead plaintiff requirements of the PSLRA. After a new plaintiff complied with those requirements in a second lawsuit, the court granted our motion to dismiss because the claims were barred by the statute of repose
  • Represented a technology company and its directors and officers in a post-closing damages action asserting claims under Exchange Act § 14(a) on behalf of an alleged class for disclosure violations in the proxy statement for a going private merger. The court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice notwithstanding an opinion in an earlier action in which the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a complaint that challenged the same merger disclosures 
 
Education
  • J.D., University of Virginia 1990
  • A.B., Dartmouth College 1987

Awards

Chambers USA

  • Band 5, New York Litigation: Securities, (2021 – 2025) 

The Legal 500 United States

  • Recommended, Securities Litigation – Defense, (2015 – 2025)
  • Recommended, M&A Litigation: Defense, (2020 – 2024)

My latest insights

Publication

Supreme Court confirms Section 11 liability is limited to investors who can trace their...

1 June 2023 .5 minute read

Publication

Buying assets from the FDIC

17 March 2023 .9 minute read

News

DLA Piper announces new practice leadership

18 February 2022 .3 minute read

View All

Connect

Phone

+1 212 335 4920
(Work, New York)
CallvCardLinkedInPrint
Privacy policyLegal noticesCookie policyModern slaveryWhistleblowingFraud AlertSitemap

DLA Piper is a global law firm operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information about these entities and DLA Piper's structure, please refer to the Legal Notices page of this website. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising.

© 2025 DLA Piper