Securities Litigation

Williams & Connolly’s securities practice has established a national reputation by bringing the law firm’s focus on trial excellence to litigation involving the securities laws.  Although we frequently win cases on motions to dismiss, we have built our reputation on our ability to prevail when preliminary motions have been unsuccessful and our courtroom experience and reputation allow us to achieve successful outcomes. 

Securities cases pose among the most challenging and complex issues our clients face.  We are proud that leading corporations, private equity firms, financial institutions, accounting and law firms, directors, and officers place their trust in us to represent them in these matters.  These disputes can also often involve overlapping government investigations or proceedings, where we work with our securities enforcement and criminal securities fraud practices to provide integrated and comprehensive representation of clients facing issues arising under the securities statutes. 

The law firm’s securities representations involve suits of all types, including class actions proceeding in federal and state courts (and under federal and state law), derivative actions, and common-law and statutory shareholder disputes.  We have extensive experience litigating disputes arising under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as common law and derivative theories of liability against corporations, officers, and directors.  We also routinely represent individual directors, officers, and professional firms in securities matters.

We have litigated securities actions across the country and around the globe.  Clients have called on Williams & Connolly to take over securities cases after a loss on appeal or a motion to dismiss, to argue securities cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and the courts of appeals, and to litigate and win cases from the outset.  We also assist clients in the preliminary stages of such litigation, including in navigating the issues arising from investigations by plaintiff-side securities law firms and responding to requests from shareholders.   

Below we identify several recent securities representations of companies and private equity firms:

  • Representing a Fortune 100 health-solutions and pharmacy company and several current and former executives in class actions brought under the 1933 and 1934 Acts in federal and state courts in Rhode Island and New York, as well as related derivative litigation in Rhode Island federal court. 
  • Representing a Fortune 100 technology company in a class action in California federal court brought under the 1934 Act arising from alleged vulnerabilities in the company’s products.
  • Representing leading biopharmaceutical firms in multiple class actions brought under the 1933 and 1934 Acts arising from the publication of adverse clinical results in federal courts in New York and Pennsylvania. 
  • Representing a natural-gas provider and several current and former directors and officers in a class action brought in Texas federal court under the 1934 Act and derivative litigation arising from a regulatory investigation and fine.
  • Representing a Fortune 100 financial institution in a class action under the 1934 Act after the case was remanded for a new trial in Illinois federal court on loss causation and damages.
  • Representing a Fortune 200 hospital provider and officers and directors in a class action under the 1934 Act brought in Texas federal court and derivative litigation brought in Texas state and federal courts arising from the settlement of a government investigation and fine. 
  • Representing a Fortune 500 biopharmaceutical company and several current and former executives in a class action under the 1934 Act arising from allegedly misleading medical publications and clinical trial data brought in federal court in Minnesota. 
  • Representing a Fortune 500 insurance carrier and its officers and directors in a class action under the 1933 and 1934 Acts arising from a restatement of company financial statements brought in New York federal court. 
  • Representing a Fortune 100 aviation and defense-technology company in litigation in California federal court precluding investors from asserting foreign securities claims. 
  • Representing a medical-device manufacturer and the company’s officers and directors in a class action under the 1934 Act and derivative case in federal court in New York arising from an investigation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 

Recent representations of private equity firms include:

  • Representing a firm and its executives in international litigation and class actions brought under the 1934 Act in numerous federal courts in connection with the collapse of a $23 billion fund. 
  • Representing a firm and two directors in a class action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery arising from a stock swap deal.
  • Representing a firm in a class action under the 1934 Act in federal court in California arising from sales of stock in a satellite operator. 
  • Representing a firm and affiliated entities in a Delaware Chancery suit brought by minority shareholders challenging the valuation of a corporation.
  • Representing a firm and affiliated funds in a class action under the 1933 and 1934 Acts brought in Texas federal court and a derivative case in Texas state court arising from an energy-exploration company’s disclosures of prospects and related trading activities. 

Williams & Connolly Secures First Circuit Appellate Victory on Behalf of CVS Health

Williams & Connolly Secures First Circuit Appellate Victory on Behalf of CVS Health

John Williams Named “Next Generation Lawyer” by The Legal 500

John Williams Named “Next Generation Lawyer” by The Legal 500
back to top