Skip to main content

Joel D. Rothman

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4495

Share:

Joel’s practice encompasses a range of complex commercial, securities, 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 class actions, and has helped collect $7 billion for institutional clients. He has represented various clients in evaluating whether opt out of or objecting 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 an average of $11 million 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 with respect to permitting disputes and land use litigation. 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.

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, which makes Joel adept at counseling clients on all facets of the employment relationship.

While in law school, Joel worked as a research assistant, aiding in drafting briefs as amicus curiae for 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.
  • Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating in virtually all U.S. securities class actions, regulatory settlements, and other investor settlements.
  • Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating as claimants or plaintiffs in antitrust 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, England, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa and Taiwan. 
  • Obtained dismissal of lawsuit brought by a municipality challenging a funding agency’s determination of eligibility for a Comprehensive Permit.

Involvement

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

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint 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
Viewpoint 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
Viewpoint 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
Viewpoint 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
Viewpoint Thumbnail
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.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
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.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
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
Viewpoint Thumbnail
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
Viewpoint Thumbnail
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

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.
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.
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.