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
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
Recent Decision in Newmont Mining Reinforces the High Bar Buyers Face when Attempting to Establish a Material Adverse Event
May 4, 2020 | Blog | By Francis Earley, Alec Zadek, Joel Rothman
As parties to merger or acquisition agreements carefully review their agreements to see what, if any, impacts the COVID-19 pandemic may have, the recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Newmont Mining Corp. v. AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. provides meaningful guidance for the interpretation of Material Adverse Effect (“MAE”) provisions in agreements governed by New York law.
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
Judge Rakoff Unseals Documents in Petrobras Securities Class Action To Allow Use in Foreign Arbitration, Bypassing Traditional Requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782
August 14, 2019 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
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
Court Denies Class Member’s Untimely Request to Be Excluded from Class Even Though Class Member Had Previously Filed a Separate Action
July 24, 2019 | Blog | By Joel Rothman
Supreme Court Denies Opportunity To Clarify Whether The Federal Securities Laws Carry a Duty to Update
May 22, 2019 | Blog | By Ellen Shapiro
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
Tenth Circuit Affirms Extraterritorial Reach of SEC Enforcement of the Federal Securities Laws
April 25, 2019 | Blog | By Alain Mathieu, Joel Rothman
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
Teva Putative Federal Securities Class Member Seeks to Toll Statute of Repose with Motion to Intervene
March 12, 2019 | Blog | By Kevin Mortimer, Ellen Shapiro
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
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
