Capital Markets Litigation | Global Capital Markets Litigation | Litigation | Securities Litigation
Professional Career
Significant Accomplishments
Represented multiple investment funds, including Jet Capital, Cohen & Steers, and Lakewood Capital, in a securities fraud case against VEREIT (f/k/a ARCP) in a case involving allegations of intentional accounting fraud by top company executives. All matters were confidentially settled.
Represented entities related to Fred Alger Management and Valinor Capital Management in direct actions against LendingClub Corporation related to allegations regarding fraud by its former CEO and other executives. The matter was confidentially settled.
Represented Discovery Capital Management as plaintiff in a securities fraud case against a leading South American oil company. The matter was confidentially settled.
Represented investment funds in a state court action bringing federal strict liability claims for violations of securities laws. The matter was confidentially settled.
Counseled a major institutional investor regarding securities fraud claims against a Fortune 25 company, successfully settling the matter without filing a complaint.
Counseled a set of major institutional investors with respect to their securities fraud claims against a major internet technology company, successfully settling the matter without filing a complaint.
Representing investors such as Brahman Capital, Incline Global, Janus, and Grantham Mayo in a securities fraud action against Valeant International (n/k/a Bausch Health).
Representing investors such as Fred Alger Management and Pennant Capital in an action against Signet Jewelers for multifaceted fraud.Â
Won $475 million arbitration award on behalf of Chinese insurer in international arbitration venued in Hong Kong relating to $5 billion cross-border M&A transaction.
Successfully defended corporation against ERISA claim, defeating the claims via a motion to dismiss. Sundt v. Telcordia Techs., Inc., No. 12-CV-257 DMC MF, 2012 WL 5522899 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2012); Sundt v. Telcordia Techs., Inc., No. 12-CV-0257 DMC MF, 2013 WL 4588653 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2013).
Successfully defended Rutgers University against Section 1983 claims, defeating the claims via a motion to dismiss.
Recent activity at the Supreme Court—with two major cases decided in the past year—has clarified the landscape of when individual claims are equitably tolled by the filing of a class action.
At the outset, it is critical to distinguish between two related but legally distinct concepts: a statute of limitations and a statute of repose. A statute of limitations is a requirement that a claim be brought within a certain time period after the cause of action accrues. In the case of the federal securities laws, statutes of limitations usually begin to run upon discovery of facts that alert the putative plaintiff to the existence of a claim, which often equates to discovery of the injury. A statute of repose, on the other hand, is a legislative extinguishment of claims made after a certain period of time. In the federal securities laws, the running of the statute of repose generally is triggered by the making of the statement or the purchase of the security.
(subscription required to access article)
© Lowenstein Sandler LLP, 2016