Your business is unique – your litigation strategy should be too

Our Corporate and Securities Litigation team uses industry and sector-specific experience to tackle your most challenging legal and regulatory issues consistent with your business goals and strategies.

We have a leading Corporate and Securities Litigation Defense practice, with over 60 hands-on litigators who have decades of experience in their fields, in both private litigation and government enforcement. We regularly defend class actions and other claims under federal securities laws, and claims under state corporations codes and limited liability company acts, including in New York, California, Texas and Delaware. We’re one of the few international law firms with a Delaware office, which allows us to provide one-firm representation for corporate governance disputes.

“Our team has been recognized by Legal 500 as a Leading Firm in Securities Litigation – Defense, and by Law360 as one of the 'mightiest' firms handling defense of securities class actions. ”

Our team has an established record of making new laws and successfully resolving – and helping our clients avoid – complex claims against corporations (including SPACs), officers and directors, underwriters and auditors. We have deep experience in representing clients in a variety of industries, including life sciences, insurance, financial services, accounting and emerging technologies. Because we draw on the knowledge and experience of our colleagues worldwide, we offer clients solutions that are both bespoke and pragmatic. We listen closely to our clients’ needs and work to provide them with fast, value-added services.

Our team has been recognized by Legal 500 as a Leading Firm in Securities Litigation – Defense, by Law360 as one of the “mightiest” firms handling defense of securities class actions, as a Leader in Securities & Finance Litigation in the BTI Litigation Outlook 2022 and named among the Top 10 Most Innovative Law Firms by the Financial Times in 2022.


  • Obtained dismissal in November 2022 of a securities class action filed in the E.D.N.Y. against a natural food company alleging that the company was engaged in “channel stuffing” to artificially inflate sales and revenues. The dismissal ruling followed an appellate ruling in which the Second Circuit remanded an earlier dismissal decision to address a disputed question of law.
  • Obtained dismissal with prejudice in August 2022 of a securities class action filed in the S.D.N.Y. against a Spanish sustainable energy company. The dismissal followed an earlier dismissal in which the court had allowed plaintiffs to amend their allegations.
  • Obtained dismissal of a securities class action filed against a developer of surgical solutions in the Middle District of Florida alleging that the company misrepresented the commercial prospects for its nerve damage therapy. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in August 2022.
  • Obtained dismissal with prejudice in March 2022 of a putative class action asserting merger-related claims under section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against a technology company in the D. Del. A Third Circuit judge, sitting by designation, concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to cure the pleading failures that had led the district court to grant an earlier motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not appeal.
  • Representing a multinational pharmaceutical company in a putative securities class action in the S.D.N.Y. brought on behalf of holders of contingent value rights issued in connection with a public company merger. Plaintiffs assert claims of securities fraud and other violations based on the allegation that the issuer never intended to obtain FDA approval of three product candidates that were triggers for payment on the CVRs before their contractual milestone dates.
  • Obtained dismissal of Securities Act claims based on offerings of oil-and-gas royalty trusts established by an independent oil and gas company because plaintiffs failed to comply with technical requirements of the PSLRA. We then won dismissal of a later action asserting identical claims as time-barred.
  • Represented a high-tech company in a securities fraud action in the N.D. Cal. We defeated class certification in a precedent-setting ruling in which the court also dismissed the action on the same ground. The matter settled favorably soon thereafter.
  • Represented a medical device manufacturer in a putative class action asserting claims for securities fraud, and a related stockholder derivative action, filed after the company disclosed it had received a subpoena from the inspector general of HHS. A California state court dismissed the stockholder derivative complaint. The securities action settled favorably after we twice obtained dismissal and substantially narrowed the allegations in pre-trial motions.
  • Represented a prominent personal lines insurance company in a securities class action in the N.D. Ill. challenging statements describing perceived cause of increases in auto insurance claim frequency. Successfully petitioned for review and obtained reversal in the Seventh Circuit of class certification order in July 2020.
  • Represented a pharmaceutical company in a securities class action asserting that the company issued a misleading press release regarding the involvement of the Mayo Clinic in a clinical study. After significant pre-trial motion practice, the matter settled favorably on the eve of trial.
  • Represented five underwriters of an initial public offering of common stock by a healthcare insurance technology company, in a class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against the company, its directors and officers, and the underwriters.
  • Represented a biotech company in a putative class action filed in the E.D.N.Y. days after the company disclosed that the FDA had deferred the PDUFA action date for a pending new drug application. We persuaded the lead plaintiff to dismiss the suit.
  • Represented a clinical-stage biotech pharmaceutical company and individual officers and directors in both securities and derivative actions filed in the D.N.J. after the company disclosed that it was reviewing its revenue recognition practices.
  • Represented a medical device manufacturer and the individual defendants in two stock option backdating cases filed in the W.D. Tex. After successive motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the cases.


Featured insights