Joel practices as Special Counsel at Mintz in the Litigation Section, with a particular focus on litigation that creates recovery opportunities for institutional investors, as well as real estate litigation and insurance matters. As a key member of the Institutional Class Action Recovery Practice, Joel advises institutional investors with respect to the monitoring and evaluation of both foreign and domestic securities and antitrust class actions, and has helped collect over $8 billion for institutional clients. He has represented various clients in evaluating whether to opt out of or object to class settlements throughout the world. Joel, along with the rest of the Institutional Class Action Recovery Practice, represents mutual funds, institutional investors, public pension funds, trusts, investment advisors, and individuals as claimants in thousands of cases, both foreign and domestic, handling approximately 350 cases concurrently, with up to several million dollars in recoveries per week.
A well-rounded attorney, in addition to his work with institutional investors, Joel has an active real estate litigation practice, representing developers, property owners, and financing agencies, particularly with respect to land use litigation and permitting disputes. Joel has expertise in real estate disputes involving municipal zoning board hearings and decisions, zoning appeals, and Chapter 40B affordable housing issues. A seasoned litigator, he advises clients at all stages of civil litigation, from pre-litigation counseling and investigation through discovery, alternative dispute resolution, trial, and the appeals process.
Joel also has extensive experience representing primary and excess insurers and reinsurers in complex coverage disputes arising under representations and warranties and commercial general liability policies.
Before joining the firm, Joel held a clerkship position with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, serving under, the late Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants. He has also held internship positions in the litigation sections of law firms in Boston, and in the Insurance and Financial Services Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
Experience
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery
- Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating in virtually all U.S. securities class actions, regulatory settlements, and other investor class actions.
- Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating as opt-out claimants or parties in antitrust and securities class actions involving interest rate and currency manipulation claims.
- Represented mutual funds and other institutional investors in evaluating and participating in global recovery opportunities, including securities and antitrust cases in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, England, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa and Taiwan.
Real Estate
- Obtained dismissal of lawsuit brought by a municipality challenging a funding agency’s determination of eligibility for a Comprehensive Permit.
- Successfully appealed to the DHCD a municipality’s determination that it had achieved an affordable housing statutory minimum.
- Represented clients in front of local zoning boards in Massachusetts land zone proceedings.
Insurance
- Defended an insurer against claims that it converted subrogation claims, obtaining summary judgment from the US District Court for the District of Oregon.
- Represented clients in evaluating coverage disputes under representation and warranties and general commercial liability policies.
viewpoints
Petition for Certiorari Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Whether the Federal Securities Laws Carry a Duty to Update
February 14, 2019 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
Last week, executives of the now-defunct biotechnology company, Orexigen filed a petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking clarification of the duty to update under the federal securities laws. The petition seeks further review of a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit, Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018), which not only created a departure from other courts in its narrow-approach to incorporation by reference and judicial notice, but according to Orexigen, also distinguished itself from other Circuit Courts by being the first Circuit Court to find that an issuer owes a duty to update a statement of historical fact that was accurate when made. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that “by touting and publishing the ‘surprisingly’ positive 25 percent interim results [of the drug at-issue’s ability to decrease cardiovascular events], Orexigen created its own obligation to report that those results did not pan out after all” as evidenced by the 50 percent interim results.
Read more
Delaware Chancery Court Holds Corporations Cannot Enact Federal Forum Provisions To Bypass Cyan and Preclude State Courts from Hearing Securities Act Claims
January 17, 2019 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro, Joel Rothman
In 2017, courts across this country were split on whether plaintiffs could assert a class action alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (which provides a private right of action against issuers and others for providing false or misleading statements in offering materials) in state court. While California state courts recognized such jurisdiction, in New York, similar suits were routinely removed to federal court. In the midst of this jurisdictional uncertainty and prior to launching their respective initial public offerings, Blue Apron Holdings, Roku Inc., and Stitch Fix, Inc. adopted charter-based Federal Forum Provisions, in an attempt to make federal district courts the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting claims arising under the Securities Act.
Read more
Judge Rakoff Highlights the Financial Risk to Objectors of Class Settlements
October 23, 2018 | | By Joel Rothman, Ellen Shapiro, Kevin Mortimer, Alain Mathieu
On August 15, 2018, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded an objector to the Petrobras class settlement nearly $12,000 in attorneys’ fees (click here for the Order). The objector had asked the Court for almost $200,000 to cover 231.7 hours of legal work. Approximately one month later, Judge Rakoff sanctioned another objector to the Petrobas class settlement (click here for the Order). In the September Order, Judge Rakoff issued a grave warning to future objectors and reminded counsel that it is the Court’s duty to “safeguard the ability of objectors to protect class members from abusive settlements while in turn protect[] class members from being abused by the objectors themselves.
Read more
U.S. District Court Holds that Certain Claims by Opt-Out Plaintiffs Are Barred by the Statute of Repose
October 10, 2018 | Blog | By Joel Rothman, Kevin Mortimer, Ellen Shapiro, Alain Mathieu
In a recent ruling in In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims asserted by opt-out plaintiffs as time barred by the Exchange Act’s statute of repose pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in ANZ Securities. This decision underscores that institutional investors should closely monitor the statutes of limitation and repose applicable to securities fraud claims to ensure they are not later barred from recovery.
Read more
Court Allows Volkswagen Bondholder Action to Proceed, But Expresses Doubts about the Plaintiff’s Ability to Certify a Class
October 1, 2018 | Blog | By Joel Rothman, Alain Mathieu
As we previously noted in this post, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Volkswagen Bondholder Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to amend, holding that it could not rely on the Affiliated Ute or Basic presumptions to plead reliance, and that it had not sufficiently pleaded direct reliance. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Bondholder’s Class Action complaint (SAC), which added allegations: (1) of direct reliance, (2) that the bonds at issue were priced and traded on an efficient market, (3) that the defendants’ alleged fraud created the market, and (4) that Volkswagen committed fraud on the regulatory process. On September 7, 2018, the court denied the defendants motion to dismiss, and ruled that that the case may proceed to discovery, but also expressed concerns about the Plaintiffs’ ability to certify a class.
Read more
In Khoja, the Ninth Circuit Limits Defendants’ Ability to Argue Facts in a Motion to Dismiss
September 18, 2018 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro, Joel Rothman
In Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., the Ninth Circuit clarified the “rare circumstances” when a court may review documents extraneous to the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Given that it has become routine for securities defendants to attach numerous documents to motions to dismiss, this decision has the potential make it easier for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss. Over the next several months, it will be interesting to see whether this decision survives the defendants’ petition for en banc review, and if so, whether courts outside the Ninth Circuit follow this decision to curtail the use of extraneous documents in deciding motions to dismiss.
Read more
Ninth Circuit Holds Transactions in Unsponsored ADRs Can Be “Domestic” Under Morrison
August 14, 2018 | Blog | By Joel Rothman, Alain Mathieu
The Toshiba Securities Litigation stems from alleged violations of the Exchange Act, as well as the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan, against Toshiba Corp., in connection with its alleged accounting fraud and accompanying restatements of its financial reports.
Read more
Special Master Recommends Return of $10.6 Million in Attorneys’ Fees to Class Members
July 19, 2018 | Blog | By Kevin Mortimer, Joel Rothman
Former U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, the Special Master appointed to investigate alleged improper billing by class plaintiffs’ firms in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Bank and Trust Company, recommended that the firms return up to $10.6 million of the $74.5 million in attorneys’ fees awarded to them after reaching a $300 million settlement in the underlying class action.
Read more
Institutional Investors Must Remain Vigilant of Limitations Deadlines in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Holding in China Agritech v. Resh
June 12, 2018 | Blog | By Joel Rothman
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh, to determine whether “[u]pon denial of class certification, may a putative class member, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.”
Read more
Volkswagen Bondholders Reliance Allegations Come Under Scrutiny
May 25, 2018 | Blog | By Joel Rothman, Alain Mathieu
This case stems from alleged misstatement made by Volkswagen Group of America Finance (“VWGoAF”) in an Offering Memorandum governing the issuance of three sets of bonds.
Read more
News & Press
The Evolving Frontier Of Foreign Securities Litigation
January 7, 2019
This Law360 Expert Analysis column, authored by Mintz Member Peter Saparoff and Associate Joel Rothman, discusses several recent developments which highlight why foreign securities litigation is an ever-changing scenario where nothing is definite.
Mintz Honored by JD Supra's 2018 Reader's Choice Awards
March 19, 2018
Mintz is proud to be recognized by JD Supra in its 2018 Reader’s Choice awards. The annual program highlights the most widely read authors and articles throughout the past year. Five Mintz attorneys were named JD Supra Top Authors in four different industries.
Business Torts in Massachusetts
August 8, 2017
Mintz Members Peter Saparoff and Adam Sisitsky, and Associate Joel Rothman co-authored the book Business Torts in Massachusetts, which provides a comprehensive and practical guide for business counsel and litigators on the wide range of "business torts" actions.
Textualism Takes Center Stage In CalPERS V. ANZ Securities
April 20, 2017
This article, co-authored by Mintz Litigation Member Joel Rothman and attorney Angela Dilenno, discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing of a case dealing with a relatively straightforward issue in the generally complex world of securities litigation.
Will Securities Antitrust Cases Invite More Objections Because of the Complexity of Their Distribution Plans?
June 23, 2016
Peter Saparoff, Co-chair of Mintz’s Securities Litigation Practice, and Joel Rothman, Mintz Boston Associate, authored this American Bar Association article discussing whether securities antitrust cases will incite an increase in objections because of the complexity of their distribution plans.
Members Peter Saparoff and Robert Kidwell and Associates Joel Rothman and Kevin Mortimer authored this ABA’s Section of Litigation column on the trend of plaintiff investors filing a growing number of class action cases against financial institutions alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws.
Involvement
- Former Member, Board of Trustees & General Counsel, Infant Toddler Children’s Center in Acton, Massachusetts
- Former Member, Board of Trustees, Concord Children's Center in Concord, Massachusetts
