Skip to main content

Joel D. Rothman

Associate

JDRo[email protected]

+1.617.348.4495

Share:

Joel’s practice encompasses a range of complex commercial, securities, insurance, and employment litigation matters, including advising institutional investors with respect to the monitoring and evaluation of both foreign and domestic securities class actions, representing shareholders in post-closing merger disputes, counseling insurance companies in coverage disputes, representing attorneys and insurance brokers against claims of professional negligence, and advising employers on all facets of the employment relationship. He also focuses his practice on representing and advising newspapers, publishers, and other media-related entities and individuals in defamation, invasion of privacy, and First Amendment matters. He regularly advises clients at all stages of civil litigation, from pre-litigation counseling and investigation through discovery, alternative dispute resolution, trial, and the appeals process.

Before joining the firm, Joel held a clerkship position with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, serving under, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice, Ralph D. Gants. He has also held internship positions in the litigation sections of law firms in Boston.

Before beginning his legal career, Joel had a successful career in human resources, including positions as an independent contractor and human resources manager for large and small businesses in the software, medical device, retail and transportation industries. In these roles, he provided oversight and training on compliance with federal, state, and international regulations involving corporate ethics and managerial conduct, family and medical leave, minimum wage, work authorization, occupational safety and health, and discrimination prevention. In addition, he prepared training materials, assisted in gathering due diligence items, investigated employee grievances, and participated in union negotiations.

While in law school, Joel worked as a research assistant, aiding in drafting briefs as amicus curiaefor two United States Supreme Court cases, one relating to the Affordable Care Act, and the other challenging a federal immigration statute on equal protection and fundamental rights grounds.

Education

  • Northeastern University (JD)
  • Wesleyan University (BA, Government)

Experience

  • 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.
  • Defended an insurer against claims that it converted subrogation claims, obtaining summary judgment from the US District Court for the District of Oregon.

Involvement

  • Member, Board of Trustees & General Counsel, Infant Toddler Children’s Center in Acton, Massachusetts

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
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.”
Viewpoint General
In the Traffic Monsoon litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the enforcement provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act reach Traffic Monsoon’s sales to customers outside of the United States. The implications of this decision are significant. This is the first Circuit Court decision to interpret Section 929P(b) of Dodd-Frank, and the first to adopt the position that Dodd-Frank limited Morrison’s application to allow for the enforcement provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts to apply extraterritorially. As a result, the decision may result in future decisions by the SEC to allow for holders of common shares to be eligible for recovery in connection with fair funds, rather than limiting eligible parties to holders of shares of American Depositary Shares or Receipts (ADR’s), a limitation the SEC imposed in the Fair Fund established for investors in BP. Recently, Traffic Monsoon has requested a stay of the Tenth Circuit's mandate while it prepares a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Viewpoint General
The United States District Court of the District of Connecticut will soon decide whether a putative class member may intervene “for the limited purpose of tolling the statute of repose.” Statutes of repose place an outer limit on when a claim can be brought. For example, claims brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 are subject to a 3-year statute of repose, 15 U.S.C. § 77m, and claims brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are subject to a 5-year statute of repose. 15 U.S.C. § 1658. Less than two-years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that unlike statutes of limitations, which may be tolled by the pendency of a class action, statutes of repose cannot be so equitably tolled. CALPERS v. ANZ Securities. Should the District Court deny the motion, the putative class member, who purchased millions of Teva shares during the proposed class period will be time-barred from opting-out of the securities class action at-issue or asserting its own claims should the action be dismissed.
Viewpoint General
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.
Viewpoint General
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.
Viewpoint General

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.
Viewpoint General

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.
Viewpoint General
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.
Viewpoint General
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.
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.

News & Press

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 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.
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.
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.
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.