Bingham

Bingham
  1. Print
  2. Save to My View (130)

Securities Litigation

Named Law Firm of the Year in Securities Litigation by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers, Bingham’s securities and financial institutions litigators bring critical industry knowledge and experience to complex financial disputes. The firm serves leading banks, accounting firms, insurance companies, securities issuers, hedge funds and investment management companies, among others, throughout the United States, Europe and Asia. It is part of the firm’s Financial Institutions Regulatory, Enforcement and Litigation Group, with nearly 150 lawyers.

With offices in New York, London, Frankfurt, Beijing, Hong Kong and Tokyo, along with a robust U.S. presence on both coasts, we have extensive on-the-ground resources in jurisdictions critical to defending cross-border disputes and international arbitrations. We know the judiciary and the relevant regulators, and they know us as trustworthy, skilled advocates.

Experience

  • Credit Suisse — Represented Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC in several actions brought by institutional noteholders involving securities backed by healthcare receivables, which were pending in Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and arose out of the collapse of National Century Financial Enterprises and its affiliates.
  • Freddie Mac — Obtained grant of a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against Freddie Mac in a federal securities fraud class action where plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of Freddie Mac’s disclosures regarding its participation in the subprime and non-conforming mortgage markets, as well as its capital adequacy, internal controls and underwriting practices, prior to Freddie Mac’s placement into conservatorship.
  • JPMC — Represented former Washington Mutual affiliates (now subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase) and employees in consolidated Securities Act actions alleging that SEC filings for various WaMu mortgage-backed securities contained misrepresentations about the company’s loan underwriting and appraisal practices. The suits concern securities with a total value of about $30 billion. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims as to 29 of the 36 securities offerings, reducing the potential exposure by approximately $25 billion. The court also dismissed all claims alleging misrepresentations as to appraisals, which had been the focus of the complaint based on a New York attorney general allegation of improper appraisal practices between WaMu and its outside appraisal provider.
  • JPMC — Represented JPMorgan Securities, f/k/a Bear Stearns, and several affiliates in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by purchasers of mortgage-backed securities alleging that offering materials contained misrepresentations concerning the underwriting practices of the mortgage originators. The claims relate to more than $17 billion in securities. In response to our motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs withdrew claims relating to approximately $20 billion in securities.
  • Bank of America — Won a motion to dismiss consolidated consumer class actions challenging the bank’s automatic renewal notices for certificates of deposit. We also defended the bank through the lengthy, convoluted preliminary stages of the case, including proceedings to compel arbitration in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
  • Deutsche Bank — Defended Deutsche Bank in a lender liability claim filed in New York Supreme Court based on allegations of unlawful termination of a $125 million lending facility. This case involved issues of contract interpretation and required an understanding of the use and purpose of conduit liquidity facilities. We moved for summary judgment prior to the commencement of discovery. Just prior to argument on the motion, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case and repay the lenders in full.
  • Icelandic Banks (Kaupthing Bank HK, Glitnir Bank HF and Landsbanki) — Advising and representing bondholders who collectively hold more than $22 billion of bonds issued by three insolvent Icelandic banks. A key part of our role is advising the bondholders on their challenge to the priority status retroactively granted to deposits pursuant to the emergency legislation introduced by the Icelandic government in October 2008. This challenge, which is based on Article 1, Protocol 1, of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Icelandic constitution, is due to be heard by the Icelandic courts in 2011. In addition, we are assisting the bondholders on the analysis of numerous other claims brought against the estates of the three banks as well as advising them on the management of the Icelandic claims adjudication process. We are also advising the bondholders on other litigation strategies to maximize their recoveries, including claims against third parties.
  • Kopin — Obtained the dismissal of all claims asserted in a putative class action filed in Massachusetts Superior Court against Kopin and its directors and senior officers predicated on allegations of stock-option backdating. The plaintiff sought to obtain an order voiding all of the stock options that Kopin granted (i.e., more than 11 million stock options) in the nine-year period between 1997 and 2006.
  • KPMG — Represented KPMG in a class action under the federal securities laws brought by investors who bought securities of Countrywide Financial Corp. between March 2004 and March 2008. KPMG is Countrywide’s former auditor. We obtained a settlement in which KPMG paid $24 million and Countrywide paid $600 million to resolve the class action litigation. We are currently representing KPMG in cases brought by institutional investors that opted out of the settlement of the class action.
  • MassMutual Life Insurance Company — Represented MassMutual in more than 25 lawsuits, including putative class actions relating to the infamous Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. The plaintiffs were investors in one or more hedge funds offered by Tremont Group Holdings, which placed funds with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (MassMutual is the ultimate parent of Tremont). The lawsuits sought to hold MassMutual liable for the alleged errors Tremont made by placing funds with Madoff.
  • Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC — Represented Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC in its capacity as co-placement agent in connection with various claims asserted by Pharos Capital Partners, L.P. arising from its $12 million investment in National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. NCFE operated a healthcare finance business that was later found to be fraudulent. On October 26, 2012, Credit Suisse prevailed on its motion for summary judgment in the District of Ohio and a judgment was subsequently entered in favor of Credit Suisse on all claims. Significantly, the court held that under either Ohio or New York law, Pharos could not prove it justifiably relied on Credit Suisse because it expressly disavowed any such reliance in a letter agreement, commonly known as a “big boy” agreement. Specifically, the court held that Credit Suisse “has proved that the parties entered into a bargained-for, retrospective statement of their dealings. Their agreement establishes that Pharos agreed not to rely on Credit Suisse and agreed that Credit Suisse had no duty to provide information to Pharos.”

Legal Alerts

News

Publications

Events

Legal insight. Business instinct. Global intelligence. ®