Kahn Swick & Foti prosecutes lawsuits on behalf of institutional and individual clients for stock fraud. The firm sues corporations who issue materially false and misleading statements to investors about the company’s financial condition and/or business prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company’s stock. Ultimately, investors suffer losses when the truth is finally revealed and the stock falls on such news. KSF litigates both class actions and private/opt out actions depending on the amount of a client’s losses.
CURRENT CASES
- Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., 1:16-cv-03545-WHP
Southern District of New York
Lead Counsel - In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Secs. Litig., 1:17-cv-1580-LGS
Southern District of New York
Lead Counsel - Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-10089
Eastern District of Michigan
Co-Lead Counsel - Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP
Middle District of Florida
Lead Counsel - In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., Securities Litigation, 15cv540 L (KSC)
Southern District of California
Lead Counsel - Pearlstein v. Blackberry Ltd., et al., 1:13-CV-07060-TPG
Southern District of New York
Lead Counsel - Shawanaz v. Intellipharmaceutics Int’l Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-5761-JPO
Southern District of New York
Lead Counsel
RECENT VICTORIES
Shanawaz v. Intellipharmaceutics International Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-5761 (S.D.N.Y.). On December 17, 2018, the Hon. J. Paul Oetken, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered an Opinion and Order denying, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss. This matter stems from alleged material misrepresentations and omissions made by defendants in describing the content and scope of studies included in the Rexista™ New Drug Application (“NDA”). In his opinion, Judge Oetken held that lead plaintiffs had stated facts with sufficient particularity to plausibly alleged that defendants had violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 17-1701 (6th Cir.). On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the lower court’s dismissal of the securities class action filed on behalf of a putative class of Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. investors. In a decision written by Senior Circuit Judge Eugene Edward Siler, Jr., the Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by concluding that lead plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter, stating that, “Esperion has offered no innocent inference stronger than Plaintiffs’ inference that Esperion knowingly or recklessly made material misrepresentations or omissions in its [] communications with investors.” The Court further held that defendants’ “innocent inference” explanations were either implausible or actually supported lead plaintiffs’ allegation of recklessness.
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No.16-56069 (9th Circuit). On August 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed lead plaintiff a major win when it overturned much of the lower court’s order dismissing all claims against Defendant Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. In a detailed 59-page opinion written by Judge A. Wallace Tashima and designated for publication, the Court found that the trial court, “in dismissing the action” had “abused its discretion by improperly considering materials outside of the complaint.” Noting a “concerning pattern in securities cases like this one” -where defendants improperly “exploit[]” the incorporation-by-reference doctrine and judicial notice procedure-the Court stated that this opinion aimed to “clarify” these procedures.
Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited, et al., No. 1:13-cv-7060-CM (S.D.N.Y.). On March 19, 2018, the Hon. Colleen McMahon, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered a Decision and Order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss in their entirety. This matter stems from alleged material misrepresentations and omissions made by defendants to conceal the poor performance of the newly launched Blackberry Z10 smartphone. In her opinion, Judge McMahon held that lead plaintiffs had stated facts with sufficient particularity to plausibly allege that defendants had violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Secs. Litig., No. 1:17-cv-1580-LGS (S.D.N.Y). On July 27, 2017, the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield, U.S. District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered an order denying defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas.
Settled Cases
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., et al., No. 3:02-cv-1152 (N.D. Tex.). Co-Class Counsel, federal securities class action against oilfield services company and a high-level officer, in which Class Counsel obtained a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., et al., 563 U.S. 804 (2011) vacating and remanding a decision of the Fifth Circuit, and then successfully defeated Defendants’ attack on the Basic v. Levinson presumption of reliance in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014). These two Supreme Court decisions led to certification of the class, and ultimately resulted in a cash settlement of $100 million for investors.
In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 1:14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y.). Member of Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the Individual Actions (“PSC”), federal securities class action against Brazil’s state-controlled petrochemical company arising from “Operação Lava Jato,” the largest corruption scandal in the history of Latin America, whereby Plaintiffs alleged Defendants deliberately overpaid on various construction contracts in return for kickbacks. As a Member of the PSC, KSF was found by the Court to have “made a substantial contribution to the class,” June 22, 2018 Opinion and Order at 39 (D.E. 834), the result of which was a settlement of $3 billion for investors.
Dr. Joseph F. Kasper, et. al. v. AAC Holdings, Inc., et. al., 3:15-cv-00923 (Consolidated) (M.D. Tenn.). Co-Lead Counsel, federal securities class action against a for-profit substance abuse treatment provider, and certain officers and directors, arising from Defendants’ misleading statements regarding a criminal investigation into the death of a patient, resulting in a settlement of $25 million for investors.
In re Virgin Mobile USA IPO Litigation, 2:07-cv-05619-SDW-MCA (D.N.J.), Co-Lead Counsel, federal securities IPO-related class action against a company providing wireless communication services, certain officers and directors, certain controlling shareholder entities, and Virgin’s underwriters, resulting in a cash settlement of $19.5 million for investors.
In Re Eletrobras Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:15-cv-05754 (Consolidated) (S.D.N.Y.). Co-Lead Counsel, federal securities class action against Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. and several of its former directors and officers, by U.S. investors after the company reported large losses related to a sprawling corruption scandal in Brazil. Nearly three years of protracted litigation resulted in a settlement of $14.75 million for investors.
In re Tesco PLC Securities Litigation, 14 Civ. 8495 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.), Lead Counsel, federal securities class action against one of the world’s largest grocery and general merchandise retailers based in the U.K., resulting in an all-cash settlement of $12 million for investors in ADRs and F shares in the United States.
In re BigBand Networks, Inc Securities Litigation, 3:07-CV-05101-SBA (C.D. Cal.), Co-Lead Counsel, federal securities class action brought against a computer hardware corporation, certain officers and directors of the Company, and the Company’s Underwriters, resulting in a cash settlement of $11 million for investors.
In re U.S. Auto Parts Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2:07-cv-02030-GW-JC (C.D. Cal.), Lead Counsel, federal securities IPO-related class action against an online automotive supply company, certain members of its board of directors, and its underwriters, resulting in a cash settlement of $10 million for investors.
In re CytRx Corp. Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.), Lead Counsel, federal securities class action brought against biotechnology corporation, certain officers and directors of the Company, and the Company’s Underwriters, resulting in a settlement of $8.5 million for investors.
In re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Securities Litigation, 4:14-cv-03998-PJH (N.D. Cal.). Co-Class Counsel, federal securities class action against a digital advertising technologies company and certain of its officers and directors, resulting in a cash settlement of $3.15 million for investors.
In re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:08-cv-00271-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Lead Counsel, federal securities IPO-related class action brought against an Internet protocol telecommunications company, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters, resulting in a cash settlement of $3 million for investors.