Skip to main content

Ellen Shapiro

Associate

[email protected]

+1.212.692.6208

Share:

Ellen is a senior associate who focuses her practice on securities litigation, including shareholder class actions and opt-outs thereto, business disputes, investigations, and crisis management. She has experience taking and defending depositions, drafting briefs and other filings, as well as representing clients in internal investigations and interfacing with various government entities including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ellen has represented companies and individuals in a variety of industries, including life sciences and financial services.

Ellen also has an active pro bono practice. To date, she has successfully represented an individual seeking asylum, a Section 8 tenant facing eviction, and a domestic violence shelter.

Prior to joining Mintz , Ellen was a litigation associate at a leading global law firm’s New York headquarters, where she worked on securities litigation and complex commercial cases, including for Fortune 500 companies.

While attending law school, Ellen was a legal intern for a New York-based civil rights lawyer, focusing on First Amendment matters and other issues. She also served on the executive board and as a submissions editor for the Harvard Journal of Law & Gender and as a primary editor for the Harvard Human Rights Journal.

Education

  • Harvard Law School (JD)
  • Duke University (BA, magna cum laude)

Experience

  • Represented wellness company and its board members, securing summary judgment, dismissing all federal securities claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, as well as a breach of contract claim, arising from merger. Summary judgment affirmed by the Second Circuit.
  • Represented wellness company and its board members, securing dismissal of all federal securities claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of contract, and common law fraud claims arising from merger.
  • Represented pharmaceutical company and its executives, securing dismissal of all federal securities claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act 1933, as well as common law claims, in connection with statements concerning pipeline drug. Dismissal affirmed by the Second Circuit.
  • Represented financial firm and its executives against Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 claims in opt-out actions across the country arising out of the 2008 financial crisis.
  • Represented investment bank in fee tail dispute to recover fees earned.
  • Represented pharmaceutical company against breach of contract claim concerning contingent value right milestones.

Involvement

  • Federal Bar Council, Program Committee, member

Case Studies

XpresSpa Case Study Hero Case Study
Mintz represented XpresSpa Group, Inc. before the Second Circuit Court on appeal from the SDNY. Appellants sought to overturn the SDNY decision granting XpresSpa summary judgment and an earlier decision dismissing all of the appellants’ state law claims.

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
In a scathing decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Court denied class certification of the Allergan securities class action (“Allergan”). See In re Allergan PLC Sec. Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179371 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 29, 2020).
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
The August 20, 2020 decision in In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“the Opinion”), dismissing a significant portion of the SEC’s federal securities claims against Volkswagen as having been previously released by the DOJ, serves as an important reminder for why such coordination is important and how defendants may take advantage of the failure to coordinate, as did Volkswagen.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
In ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the FX Opt-Outs Action, Judge Schofield narrowed the antitrust claims, denied dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens, and denied dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.
Read more
Securities Litigation Viewpoints Thumbnail
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court (the “Court”) issued a groundbreaking decision reversing the Delaware Court of Chancery’s December 2019 ruling in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, 2018 Del. Ch. LEXIS 578 (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2018), and holding that charter provisions adopted by public companies that designate a federal forum for securities claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (“Federal Forum Provisions”) are valid and enforceable.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
Recently, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) filed in the Toshiba securities litigation. As we previously wrote, in 2016, the district court dismissed the case, holding both that transactions in Toshiba’s unsponsored American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) are not “domestic” transactions as required by Morrison, and also that the plaintiffs’ Japanese law claims must be dismissed due to comity concerns and on forum non conveniens grounds. (link to prior blog). Then, in 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that Toshiba ADR trades are domestic, and allowed the defendants to file the Amended Complaint asserting more specific allegations about Toshiba’s connection to the ADR trades. (link to blog on 9th Circuit opinion).
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
On November 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order rejecting the appeal of an objector to the Foreign Exchange Antitrust Settlement. A few weeks earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Schofield had denied a motion filed by the objector and class counsel seeking an “indicative ruling” on their combined motion for approval of an agreement that would have ended the appeal. These two decision clear the way for the remaining distribution from the settlement fund, which totaled over $2.3 billion dollars.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the district court entered an order, granting CalSTRS’ motion for intervention for the limited purpose of tolling the statute of repose. While there is no longer a risk that the complaint will be dismissed (the vast majority of Plaintiffs’ claims have since survived dismissal), CalSTRS has successfully preserved its right to opt out if a class is certified. Allowing CalSTRS (and others) to use motions to intervene to toll the statute of repose rather than forcing such putative class members to choose to forego their rights or file their own opt-out action may preserve resources and encourage efficiency of the courts.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
Years after Plaintiffs brought a federal securities complaint against Petrobras, and more than a year after the case settled for approximately $3 billion, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the unsealing of the majority of documents attached to parties’ summary judgment papers. Cornell University intends to use these documents in an arbitration in Brazil. Not only does Judge Rakoff’s decision come as an important reminder that sealing orders are not intended to last forever, but this decision also demonstrates how a motion to unseal may be used to bypass the traditional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, frequently invoked by entities seeking to use U.S. discovery in foreign proceedings.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
The U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants-appellees’ petition for certiorari in Hagan v. Khoja. As set forth in our prior alert, the executives of the now-defunct biotechnology company, Orexigen, sought review of a Ninth Circuit decision, which not only created a departure from other courts in its narrow-approach to incorporation by reference and judicial notice, but according to the petition, also distinguished itself by being the first Circuit Court of Appeal to find that an issuer owes a duty to update a statement of historical fact that was accurate when made. At issue was whether Orexigen had a duty to disclose data that demonstrated interim results from an obesity drug trial were not as promising as once touted. In opposition to the petition for certiorari, respondent argued, inter alia, that “[e]ven if petitioners were correct . . . that this case implicates whether companies have a duty to update earlier statements of historical fact, the interlocutory posture of this case would make it the worst kind of vehicle for considering that question.”
Read more

News & Press

This New York Law Journal outside analysis column discusses the rapidly growing cryptocurrency space and how multiple federal and state agencies are trying to regulate these evolving markets. The column is authored by Mintz Members David Siegal and Jason Halperin. Associates Ellen Shapiro and Matthew Novian assisted in the preparation of this column.