The Pomerantz Securities Practice

• Securities Class Actions
• Ground-Breaking Cases
• Strong Qualifications
• Serving Clients of all Sizes
• The Effects of the PSLRA

Securities Class Actions

The Pomerantz firm, founded by the legendary Abe Pomerantz, was a pioneer in developing class actions on behalf of investors in the securities market, whereby investors who have been injured by a company's conduct bring a litigation not only on their own behalf, but on behalf of all other investors who were hurt in a similar fashion. When investors buy securities on the open market, they do so on the assumption that the market price for the securities represents their fair and reasonable market value. If a company misleads investors, however, such as by inflating its revenues or hiding expenses so as to create the impression that the company is much stronger financially than the undisclosed facts would actually reveal, the market price is not a true reflection of the company's value. When the truth ultimately comes out, and the market price falls, the investors who purchased the securities at the inflated prices are damaged. That is where the Pomerantz firm steps in – to protect investors and deter corporate misconduct.

Ground-Breaking Cases

The Pomerantz firm has long prided itself on litigating ground-breaking cases that have resulted in landmark decisions under the securities laws. Among these actions are Kronfeld v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 832 F.2d 726 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1007 (1988); Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc., 818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1470 (1988); Ross v. Bernhard, 397 U.S. 531 (1970); Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., 740 F.2d 190 (2nd Cir. 1984); Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 574 F.2d 656 (2nd Cir. 1978); Rosenfeld v. Black, 445 F.2d 1337 (2nd Cir. 1971); and Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369 (1st Cir. 1971).

Key to the consistent success of the Pomerantz firm in representing its securities clients vigorously and successfully is its ability to take complex and often novel cases to trial. For example, Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., was the first case tried under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Recently, the firm tried a derivative action on behalf of Rockwell Corporation in a California courtroom over a three-week period, and a securities and ERISA action against Grumman Corporation in the Eastern District of New York over a six-week period.

Strong Qualifications

The Pomerantz firm is led by senior partner Stanley M. Grossman, a nationally prominent securities litigator, who is the former president of the National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys ("NASCAT"). Mr. Grossman is a recognized expert in securities class actions, having lectured and written on the topic and having been invited to testify before various congressional committees concerning the securities laws and related pending legislation. He works with a number of outstanding partners and associates, each of whom have experience representing investors in these types of matters. Click here for list of our attorneys.

As a reflection of its experience and qualifications, the Pomerantz firm has taken a leadership role in some of the more prestigious class action litigations of the past 25 years. As an example, the case of In re First Executive Corporation Securities Litigation, the firm, as sole lead counsel achieved settlements worth $102 million for the class and exposed a massive securities fraud arising out of the Michael Milken debacle. Similarly, in the case of In re Salomon Brothers Treasury Litigation, the Pomerantz firm went head to head with numerous top-line corporate defense firms and eventually achieved a $100 million settlement for the class in a complicated antitrust and securities fraud case. Presently, the firm serves as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous major securities fraud class actions pending throughout the country. Click here for a list of our recent cases.

Serving Clients of All Sizes

The firm is optimally structured to ensure premier representation for both the small investor and the large institutional client. Indeed, the firm has represented many of the most sophisticated public and private clients in the country in cutting-edge litigation. Following the financial collapse of Orange County due to inappropriate investments in derivative instruments, for example, the Pomerantz firm was retained by Huntington Beach, California to bring a class action on behalf of the cities of Orange County, and it has represented the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System in a class action against Total Renal Care. In addition, the firm represented the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System, the Louisiana State Employees Retirement System, the Louisiana District Attorneys' Retirement System, the Employees Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge, and the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans in In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation. That action, which involved a long and especially hard-fought litigation against many of the largest securities firms in the country, ultimately resulted in a landmark series of settlements totaling more than $1 billion.

The Pomerantz firm also represented a number of large institutional investors, including the United States Trust Company and Hambrecht & Quist, in an action growing out of a failed private placement of preferred stock. This case, which was brought in New York, involved several complex issues, including the allocation of due diligence requirements among investors and agents for the issuer.

The Effects of the PSLRA

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA") has greatly changed the landscape of complex securities class actions. Under the PSLRA, investors who bring a class action under the federal securities laws must issue a public notice of the filing of their litigation. Other investors in the securities at issue then have 60 days within which to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities class action. In addition, the presumptively most adequate plaintiff under the PSLRA is the person or persons with the largest financial interest in the litigation. Although in the wake of the PSLRA courts have from time to time appointed institutional investors as lead plaintiffs, individuals or groups of individuals with losses that exceed others who have expressed interest in the litigation have also frequently been appointed as lead plaintiffs. The involvement of both large financial institutions and small investors is strongly encouraged since, as representatives of a large, diverse class, each can help represent different interests. Investors do not, however, need to be lead plaintiffs in order to participate in any recovery that may be achieved on behalf of a class.