Ellen focuses her practice on securities litigation, including shareholder class actions and opt-outs, business disputes, investigations, and crisis management. She has experience advising clients in all stages of litigation, including pre-litigation counseling and negotiations, taking and defending depositions, drafting dispositive briefs and other filings, representing clients through arbitrations and trials, as well as assisting clients through the appeals process.
Ellen also has significant experience representing clients in white collar matters, including internal investigations and interfacing with various government entities including the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Ellen has represented clients in connection with government investigations, client interviews, subpoena responses, and in the post-complaint / post-indictment phase of litigation. Ellen has represented companies and individuals in a variety of industries, including crypto, artificial intelligence, genetic testing, biotechnology, and financial services.
Ellen has an active pro bono practice. To date, she has successfully represented individuals seeking asylum, a Section 8 tenant facing eviction, and a domestic violence shelter.
Prior to joining Mintz, Ellen was a litigation associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, where she worked on securities litigation and complex commercial cases, including for Fortune 500 companies.
While attending law school, Ellen 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.
Experience
Securities Litigation
- Represented a large multinational operator of membership warehouse clubs, and its former executives, securing dismissal of all claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from allegations that the company misled the public about its performance, among other alleged missteps.
- 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 CEO of software company against federal securities claims brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission concerning milestone payments related to a merger. Achieved favorable settlement for client.
- Represented crypto-related client against federal securities claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933, brought after a restatement. Achieved favorable settlement for client.
- Represented various entities against federal securities claims brought in state court arising from their role in facilitating the sale and marketing of a Reg A offering. Achieved favorable settlement for clients.
- 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 numerous public companies in connection with shareholder demands.
White Collar
- Represented numerous executives in internal, SEC, FINRA, and DOJ investigations.
- Represented numerous biotechnology companies in FINRA investigations.
- Represented numerous biotechnology, life science, and wellness companies in SEC investigations.
- Represented individual in university-led investigation into, inter alia, allegations of research misconduct and fraudulent statements.
- Conducted internal investigation of private equity-owned portfolio company, assessing whistleblower’s pay-for-play allegations.
- Conducted internal investigation of startup, assessing potential violations of various federal and state laws.
- Represented executives in post-indictment matters, including multiweek trial in SDNY.
Business Disputes
- Represents multiple former senior executives of a leading AI company in multidistrict litigation alleging copyright and related IP claims concerning large language model training and outputs.
- Secured summary judgment in Delaware Chancery Court reinstating the founder and CEO of a leading healthcare finance company as manager in a high-stakes governance dispute; obtained affirmance of the Chancery Court ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court within 24 hours of argument.
- Represented C-suite employee in arbitration against former employer arising from his improper termination without owed compensation.
- Represented members of an asset management company in dispute concerning put option and redemption rights in ICDR arbitration. Achieved favorable settlement for clients.
- Represented private equity investor in pre-litigation business dispute with former CEO of wellness-space portfolio company.
- Represented funds in business dispute concerning alleged trademark violation and breach of non-disclosure agreement. Achieved favorable settlement for clients.
- Represented a boutique investment bank focused on clean energy deals in a commercial dispute in an AAA arbitration. The matter was settled favorably on behalf of the client in mediation.
- Represented board member of public company, securing dismissal of fraudulent inducement claim brought by a shareholder. Dismissal and denial of post-judgment amendment affirmed by the Second Circuit.
- Represented pharmaceutical company against breach of contract claim concerning contingent value right milestones.
Case Studies
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.
viewpoints
Opening the Door to the New Beginning
January 10, 2022 | Article
In a multistage pro bono engagement, Mintz represented a young man who fled gang violence in Ecuador in detention hearings after he entered the United States, then helped him obtain state court findings supporting a petition to USCIS for permission to remain in the country in the custody of an aunt.
Read more
SCOTUS Finds While Defendants Carry the Burden of Proof in Overcoming Basic’s Presumption of Reliance, Defendants May Address the Generic-Nature of Alleged Misstatements at the Class Certification Stage
June 23, 2021 | Blog | By Patrick E. McDonough, Ellen Shapiro
The Public Weighs In On How the SEC Should Regulate ESG Disclosures
June 22, 2021 | Blog | By Jacob Hupart, Ellen Shapiro
Two Isn’t Always Better Than One: SDNY Denies Class Certification Where Lead Plaintiff Hired Two Firms
October 21, 2020 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
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
How a Prior DOJ Settlement Doomed a SEC Enforcement Action: A Volkswagen Case Study
September 10, 2020 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
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
When A Relationship Is Insufficient: Opting Out of the FX Antitrust Class Action Requires Clear Indication
July 9, 2020 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
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
Supreme Court of Delaware Overturns Court of Chancery, Allowing Corporations To Enact Federal Forum Provisions to Keep Securities Act Claims In Federal Court
March 20, 2020 | Blog | By John Sylvia, Patrick E. McDonough, Ellen Shapiro
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
Federal Court Denies Toshiba’s Motion to Dismiss, Allowing Exchange Act Claims Covering Transactions in Unsponsored ADS to Proceed Alongside Japanese Law Claims Covering Common Shares
February 19, 2020 | Blog | By Joel Rothman
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
Second Circuit Summarily Affirms the Attorneys’ Fees Award in the Foreign Exchange Antitrust Settlement after District Court Rejects Class Counsel’s Side Deal with the Objector
December 2, 2019 | Blog | By Joel Rothman
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
Connecticut Court Says Intervention Is One Way To Preserve Putative Class Member's Right To Opt Out
October 10, 2019 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
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
News & Press
ESG-Focused Activism Persists Despite Proxy Curbs
August 12, 2025|
Mintz Announces New Members
December 20, 2024|
Mintz Recovers Over $400M for Institutional Investor Clients in 2024
November 14, 2024|
Twenty-seven Mintz Attorneys Recognized as 2024 New York Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
October 28, 2024
Mintz is pleased to announce that 15 attorneys have been named New York Metro Super Lawyers and 12 attorneys have been named New York Metro Rising Stars by Super Lawyers for 2024.
Twenty-nine Mintz Attorneys Named to 2023 New York Metro Super Lawyers List
September 22, 2023
NEW YORK – Mintz is pleased to announce that 18 attorneys have been named New York Metro Super Lawyers and 11 attorneys have been named New York Metro Rising Stars by Super Lawyers for 2023.
ESG Mandates For Banks May Bring Compliance Challenges
August 2, 2023|
OpEd: Navigating Fiduciary Duties Amid The Rise Of Anti-ESG Rulemaking
February 14, 2023|
'Caremark' Liability Following The SEC's New ESG Reporting Requirements
December 15, 2022|
Events & Speaking
Mar
2
2023
Cutting Edge Topics in Private Securities Litigation
Federal Bar Council
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, One Manhattan West, New York, New York 10001-8602
Apr
22
2021
Recent Trends in Securities Litigation: What You Need to Know for 2021 and Beyond
Federal Bar Council
Virtual
Sep
16
2020
The Experts on Expert Witnesses: Working with Expert Witnesses from Disclosure through Trial
Federal Bar Council
Virtual
Recognition & Awards
Legal 500: Recommended Lawyer – Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense (2026); Securities Litigation – Defense (2025)
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch – Commercial Litigation (2024 – 2025)
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch – Litigation – Securities (2022 – 2025)
New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars (2022 – 2024)
Involvement
- Federal Bar Council, Program Committee, member
