Stockholder and Investor Litigation

Overview

We represent individuals and institutions in a broad range of stockholder and investor litigation. Our attorneys have thorough experience investigating corporations and management for possible violations of federal securities laws. Where appropriate, we represent stockholders bringing derivative actions on behalf of a company to hold current or former directors and officers accountable for breaches of duties to the company that affect stockholder value. We represent investors in litigation to gain access to corporate books and records, election disputes, proxy fights, and appraisal actions. We have extensive experience litigating before the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. We have unique experience litigating disputes involving publicly-traded limited partnerships, including Master Limited Partnerships.

The core of our practice remains prosecuting securities class actions and derivative cases on behalf of shareholders and consumers. We have an active practice before the Delaware Court of Chancery and have achieved success before the Delaware Supreme Court litigating matters involving stockholder rights and the rights of master limited partnerships. Our recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court in the Enbridge matter, discussed below, strengthens the rights of limited partners in public partnerships.

Experience

Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-05857-SI; Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.); No. 20-16419 (9th Cir. 2021); Slack Technologies, LLC, f/k/a Slack Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 22-200 (2022). The plaintiff brought this class action case against Slack, alleging that Slack's registration statement was misleading because it did not disclose certain information in its registration statement about Slack's service disruptions and how customers were compensated for them. The district court and the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff did not have to show that he purchased registered shares, when registered and unregistered shares were sold at the same time under the same registration statement, to have standing to sue under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and in a decision released in June 2023, the Court rejected certain Section 11 arguments and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration of Plaintiff’s Section 11 and Section 12 claims.

Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:18 Civ. 3655, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We are lead counsel prosecuting claims for violations of the federal securities laws arising out of Gridsum’s materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding its financial reporting. The Court appointed us lead counsel on September 17, 2018.The parties recently advised the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle and are working on a formal settlement agreement and motion for approval of the settlement.

In re Vivint Solar, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00919, United States District Court for the District of Utah. We served as Lead Counsel to plaintiffs prosecuting claims for violations of the federal securities laws arising out of Vivint’s alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s legal battles and alleged financial harm stemming from alleged fraudulent sales. The case was successfully settled in mediation for the payment of $1,250,000, and the settlement was finally approved in May of 2022.

Stein, et al. v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-98, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at Chattanooga. We served as counsel to two representative plaintiffs along with co-lead counsel for the class prosecuting federal securities class action arising out of USX’s June 14, 2018, initial public offering (“IPO”). The initial complaint was filed on April 2, 2019, asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, against USX, certain executives, and the underwriters of its IPO, for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (“Offering Documents”) containing material misrepresentations and omissions. The complaint alleged that the Offering Documents misrepresented USX’s ability to maintain sufficient drivers to meet shippers’ demands, while in reality, USX was experiencing acute driver shortages, had to shift drivers from its more profitable “over-the-road” (“OTR”) contracts to its fixed rate “dedicated” contracts, and suffered losses as a result. The case was successfully settled for $13.0 million, and the settlement was finally approved on July 12, 2023.

Ortmann v. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-01335, United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 20, 2023, we were appointed Lead Counsel in this federal securities class action arising from Aurinia’s false and misleading statements about its financial results. Specifically, the false and misleading statements and failures to disclose involve Aurinia’s declining revenues and expected shortfalls in its 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS. This case is ongoing.

Chang v. Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:18-06965, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case involved Helios's false and misleading statements about the sustainability of its new business model for MoviePass subscribers and data profitability. We negotiated a favorable settlement for the class resulting in the creation of a common fund of $8.25 million for qualifying class members.

In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:10-md-02185, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. We represent nine institutional asset managers that purchased BP stock on the London Stock Exchange and prosecuted claims against BP for violations of English securities laws arising out of BP’s false and misleading statements concerning the safety of its offshore oil rigs and operations and false and misleading statements regarding the size of the oil spill. The claims were successfully resolved in March of 2021.

Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16 Civ. 1947, United States District Court for the Central District of California. We were co-lead counsel prosecuting a securities class action against NantKwest, a biotechnology company that develops immunotherapeutic agents for various clinical conditions and in which we are co-lead counsel for the plaintiff. The action resulted from NantKwest’s false and misleading statements in connection with its initial public offering and failure to disclose errors in its financial filings with the SEC. On May 13, 2019, the Court granted final approval of a settlement that will provide $12 million to the class. Reported decision: 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137084 (August 13, 2018) (order granting class certification).

Cullinan v. Cemtrex, Inc., et al., Consolidated Case No. 2:17-cv-01067, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We were co-lead counsel prosecuting claims on behalf of a class of stockholders arising out of violations of the federal securities laws related to company insider’s improper sales of stock and false and misleading statements concerning the company’s business operations. The case was settled successfully in March 2018.

Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., Delaware Court of Chancery. Prosecuted class and derivative claims against on behalf of master limited partnership Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (“EEP”), and its unitholders against EEP’s general partner, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. (“EECI”), and affiliates. The claims arose out of a 2015 drop-down transaction by which EEP repurchased certain pipeline assets from EECI. We obtained a favorable opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. In merger negotiations between EEP and its parent, Enbridge Inc., a special committee of directors valued the claim at $111.2 million.
In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery. Derivative settlement on eve of trial of $275 million, by far the largest monetary settlement in the history of the Court of Chancery and the largest cash derivative settlement in the country. In addition, settlement provided significant corporate governance benefits to class.
Gerber v. Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, Delaware Court of Chancery. We served as lead counsel for derivative and class claims arising out of a variety of master limited partnership transactions, alleging that the general partner’s approvals of the transactions were done in bad faith and in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. One action was settled by defendants agreeing to a merger that increased the value of the limited partnership units by approximately $400 million. In another action, after the trial court dismissed the complaint, we prevailed before the Delaware Supreme Court to reinstate the claims for breach of implied covenant. The matters settled for $12.4 million for the Master Limited Partnership unitholders. Reported decision at 67 A.3d 400 (2012).
In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery. We are prosecuting claims on behalf of a El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., a public Master Limited Partnership, against its general partner and its sponsor, El Paso Corporation (now merged into Kinder Morgan, Inc.). The claims arise out of the 2010 “drop down” of certain pipeline assets from the general partner to the partnership. After trial, the Court found that the Special Committee which recommended approval of the transaction did not believe that the transaction was in the best interests of the partnership and, therefore, that the general partner breached the partnership agreement by engaging in the transaction. The Court found that the Partnership was damaged in the amount of $171 million. (Case dismissed on appeal due to lack of standing.)
Brinkerhoff v. Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC., Delaware Court of Chancery. Reported decision at 986 A.2d 370 (2010). We brought claims on behalf of TEPPCO’s common unitholders claiming that in transactions orchestrated by TEPPCO’s general partner, TEPPCO had been shortchanged by hundreds of millions of dollars. The action was resolved by a merger which benefit ted TEPPCO’s unitholders by more than $400 million.

Cases

08/24/20

News

October 26, 2021 | News & Insights

Bragar Eagel in the News: Slack's Direct Listing Ruling Could Have Far-Reaching Impact

You may share a link to this page on any of the sites listed below or send link via email:

Stockholder and Investor Litigation

Overview

Experience

Cases

Cancer Genetics, Inc.

NTN Buzztime, Inc.

Principia Biopharma Inc.

Noble Energy, Inc.

Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN)

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company

Adesto Technologies Corporation

E*TRADE Financial Corporation

Legg Mason, Inc.

Delphi Technologies PLC

CenterState Bank Corporation

Cincinnati Bell, Inc.

Telaria, Inc.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc.

AK Steel Holding Corporation

SORL Auto Parts, Inc.

Aircastle Limited

Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK)

Empire Resorts, Inc.

Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.

Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

Highpower International, Inc.

Isramco, Inc.

Akers Biosciences, Inc. (AKER)

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALNY)

Zebra Technologies Corporation

OSI Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSIS)

Aqua Metals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQMS)

Equifax Inc. (EFX)

News

Bragar Eagel in the News: Slack's Direct Listing Ruling Could Have Far-Reaching Impact