In the News

Nick Even in Law360: Justice Roberts Holds The Key In Halliburton Arguments

When the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday hears Halliburton Co.’s bid to overturn the 25-year-old fraud-on-the-market theory, all eyes will be on Chief Justice John Roberts, who may hold the swing vote in determining the future of securities class actions. >>

Nick Even in Corporate Counsel: Will 'Fraud on the Market' Survive Halliburton II?

In each term of the U.S. Supreme Court, there are a few cases that have the potential to bring sweeping change to the established legal landscape. One of the marquee cases of the current term—at least for those interested in securities litigation—is Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., which has the potential to alter the lucrative world of securities fraud class actions in major ways. >>

Recent Publications

Delaware Supreme Court Adopts New Board-Friendly Standard for Certain Controlling-Shareholder Buyouts

In an opinion that could substantially affect future controlling-shareholder buyouts, the Delaware Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the Chancery Court’s decision that the business judgment standard of review, rather than entire fairness, should apply to controlling-party takeovers where it is established before trial that certain protections exist. >>

In Stanford-Related Cases, Supreme Court Allows State-Law Fraud Class Actions, Limiting the Extent of Federal Preclusion

On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court held that state-law fraud class actions brought against attorneys, insurance brokers and others arising from Ponzi-scheme claims involving R. Allen Stanford could proceed. >>

Securities Litigation Year in Review 2013

The Haynes and Boone Securities Litigation Year in Review 2013 outlines recent (and upcoming) Supreme Court decisions as well as notable rulings from federal courts of appeal and district courts in the past year that affect private securities litigation, including the areas of class certification, loss causation, scienter, duty to disclose, pleading falsity, preemption, standing and statutes of limitations. The Review also discusses government enforcement cases and trends, and key state law rulings in shareholder derivative and fiduciary litigation. >>

Recognition for Our Litigation Practice

  • The BTI Consulting Group’s BTI Litigation Outlook 2013 recognized Haynes and Boone in three litigation areas: securities or finance related litigation, complex commercial litigation and IP litigation. The national survey of more than 350 senior in-house attorneys asked, “Which firm do you consider to be best suited to helping you” with various legal services.

Securities Class Action Defense and Shareholder Litigation

Our Securities Class Action Defense and Shareholder Litigation practice group represents a broad range of clients ranging from individual officers, directors and stockholders to corporations, partnerships, investment funds, institutional investors, stock brokers and accounting firms. We assist clients with all aspects of corporate and securities litigation including:

Our securities litigation lawyers work closely with our White Collar Criminal Defense Practice Group in connection with Securities Exchange Commission actions and with our Corporate/Securities Practice Group in connection with fiduciary duties, corporate governance, internal investigations and special board committee work. They work closely with our Insurance Coverage Litigation Practice Group in connection with director and officer indemnification and insurance coverage issues. Also, they work with lawyers in other practice areas as part of a coordinated, multidisciplinary ERISA and Other Benefits Litigation Practice Group to provide clients with comprehensive legal services regarding disputes involving ERISA, including actions brought under ERISA that mirror the factual allegations of parallel securities fraud class actions.

Our lawyers have significant experience in all areas of corporate and securities litigation, including class actions and derivative suits. We have extensive experience litigating against the most active plaintiff securities class action law firms in the nation, including Milberg, LLP and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP. We litigate before federal and state courts and self-regulatory bodies and handle investigations by, and enforcement proceedings before, federal and state regulatory agencies.

Added Value
Our lawyers devise creative and sensible strategies designed to further our clients’ corporate goals as well as their litigation objectives. We invest time learning the intricacies of our clients’ businesses to enhance the quality of our advice and to foster long-term relationships. We work with clients and their insurers to maximize coverage under all implicated policies. We also employ the firm’s top-ranked, state-of-the-art technology from the outset of every case to facilitate teamwork and eliminate duplicative efforts, to preserve and organize information, and to keep our clients well-informed.

Industry Experience
We serve as counsel for numerous publicly-held corporations as well as those whose stock is traded over-the-counter. Our clients come from a variety of industries including: wireless communications, fiber-optic transmissions, information technology, e-commerce, consumer finance, consumer loan securitizations, mortgage-backed assets, oil and gas, mining, chemicals, investment banking, underwriting, and broker-dealers.

Some of the significant decisions attorneys in this practice area have obtained include:

Dismissal/Summary Judgment Opinions in Securities Fraud Suits

  • Pedroli v. Bartek, 564 F. Supp.2d 683 (E.D. Tex. 2008)
  • Energytec, Inc. v. Proctor, 516 F.Supp.2d 660 (N.D. Tex. 2007)
  • Krim v., Inc., 402 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. March 1, 2005)
  • In re Alamosa Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 712001 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2005)
  • Krim v., Inc., 2003 WL 21076787 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2003)
  • Berger v. Beletic, 248 F. Supp. 2d 597 (N.D. Tex. 2003)
  • In re Capstead Mortgage Corp. Sec. Litig., 258 F. Supp. 2d 533 (N.D. Tex. 2003)
  • Sherman v. Triton Energy Corp., 124 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App. - Dallas, 2003)
  • Alcina v., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 732 (W.D. Tex 2002)

Dismissal/Summary Judgment Opinions in Shareholder Derivative Suits

  • In re Schmitz [Lancer Corporation], 285 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. May 22, 2009)
  • King v. Bartlett [Flowserve Corporation], No. 600991/2007 (S.Ct. N.Y. Co., Jan. 2, 2008)
  • King v. Bartlett [Flowserve Corporation], 3:06-CV-0453 (N.D. Tex., Mar. 14, 2007)

Denials of Class Certification

  • Umsted v. Intelect, Inc., 2003 WL 79750 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2003)
  • Kase v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16659 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2003)
  • Krim v., Inc., 210 F.R.D. 581 (W.D. Tex. 2002)