Grossman LLP | Securities Litigation
Practice Areas

Securities Litigation

Our attorneys have a broad range of experience in all phases of litigating complex securities cases from trial to appeals, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. They have taken on cutting edge issues resulting in landmark decisions. See, e.g., Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (establishing the right to a jury trial in shareholder derivative actions); EBC I, Inc. (eToys) v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170 (2005) (holding for the first time that an issuer may assert a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against an underwriter). And, acting as lead, or co-lead counsel, our lawyers have helped obtained substantial recoveries for shareholders. See, e.g., Caiafa v. Comverse Technology, Inc., 1:06-cv-01825 (E.D.N.Y.) ($225 million); In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litigation, 91 Civ. 5471 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (recovering $100 million for class of treasury note customers arising out of an alleged market squeeze); In re First Executive Corporation Securities Litigation, CV-89-7135 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (claims against Drexel and Michael Milken resulting in a $100 million recovery).

Grossman LLP’s Senior Counsel, Stanley Grossman, has been a leader in the plaintiffs’ securities bar for 40 years, and he was featured in the New York Law Journal article: “Top Litigators in Securities Field — A Who’s Who of City’s Leading Courtroom Combatants.” In 2008, he argued before the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case of Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008).

We also have experience representing defendants in securities cases. Judd Grossman has been part of the defense team in numerous securities suits, including a putative class-action lawsuit against underwriters of an IPO under Section 11 of the Securities Act alleging that a medical-device manufacturer’s IPO registration statement was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose certain alleged conflicts of interest in its medical trial programs. Levine v. AtriCure, No. 06-14324 (S.D.N.Y.)