Investment Bank Representation

We have represented many of the world's leading investment banks and broker-dealers in litigation brought under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and related statutes. We have obtained dismissals with prejudice of many class actions brought against investment banks and broker-dealers, including:

Amin v. S.G. Cowen. We successfully represented Prudential Securities in obtaining a dismissal with prejudice of mass actions arising out of acquisition of managed care medical corporations. Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

Autodesk Securities Litigation. We successfully represented the underwriter/analyst in obtaining dismissal of a class action involving open market trading.

Bergen Capital Trust Securities Litigation. We successfully defended the managing underwriters in defense of a class action involving $300 million debt offering and open market trading, which was settled without payment by our clients.

Chan v. Orthologic Corp.. We successfully represented the lead underwriters in defense of a class action involving open market trading and obtained a dismissal with prejudice on the initial motion.

Herman v. Salomon Smith Barney. We successfully defended Salomon in obtaining dismissal with prejudice of class action challenging alleged practices in sale of municipal bonds.

In re KENETECH Securities Litigation. We successfully represented the lead underwriters in defense of class actions arising out of a $100 million IPO of common stock, $100 million offering of preferred depositary shares and open market trading. We obtained dismissal of the Section 11 claims by open market purchasers and summary judgment on the remaining claims.

In re Metricom Securities Litigation. We successfully defended underwriters Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Salomon Smith Barney and J.P. Morgan against a claim that a public offering prospectus failed to disclose facts that plaintiffs claimed led to the company's bankruptcy. After earlier dismissing with leave to amend, the judge dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and the ruling was affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Myers v. Merrill Lynch. We obtained a dismissal with prejudice on the initial motion to dismiss a class action against numerous underwriters of IPOs, and the ruling was affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Olson v. Salomon Smith Barney. We obtained a voluntary dismissal of a class action against Salomon challenging alleged practices in sale of municipal bonds.

In re Software Toolworks, Inc. Securities Litigation. We successfully represented the Securities Industry Association as amicus curiae in support of affirmance of summary judgment for certain underwriters on their due diligence defense.

Steckman v. Hart Brewing. We successfully defended the lead underwriters in a class action arising out of $50 million IPO and open market trading. We obtained a dismissal with prejudice of the federal action on the initial motion and voluntary dismissal of state court actions. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

In re Surebeam Corporation Securities Litigation. We successfully represented lead underwriters Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Wachovia and A.G. Edwards in a consolidated securities class action asserting misrepresentations in a public offering prospectus issued in connection with SureBeam Corporation's initial public offering.  Following significant motion and discovery proceedings, the litigation was settled without any payment by the underwriters.

In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation. We successfully represented the lead underwriters in defense of securities class actions alleging federal securities claims and common law fraud claims arising out of $120 million IPO, and the sole underwriter in defense of a similar class action arising out of $80 million public offering of convertible debentures. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.

OK
Cancel