Skip to main content

John F. Nucci


[email protected]



John’s practice focuses on a wide variety of litigation matters. He is experienced in all phases of litigation.

Prior to joining Mintz, John served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Robert Cordy of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He also worked as an Assistant District Attorney in the Appellate Division of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, where he filed first appellate briefs on behalf of the Commonwealth in twelve cases, and presented oral argument before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in seven cases.

During law school, John served as a Student Prosecutor at the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.


  • Suffolk University Law School (JD, summa cum laude)
  • Suffolk University (BS, cum laude)


  • Represents joint venture between international hotel company and leading global investment firm in dispute with landowner regarding rights to 100+ year leasehold interest in a high-value Boston hotel property.

Recognition & Awards

  • Suffolk Jurisprudence Award, Secured Transactions (2011)
  • Distinguished Oral Advocate, Legal Practice Skills Section Competition (2010)
  • Distinguished Best Brief, Legal Practice Skills Section Competition (2010)
  • Phi Delta Phi Honor Society


Is the Defense Bar Losing the "Securities Class Action War?"

December 11, 2017 | Blog | By John Nucci

Douglas Greene, one of the United States’ most well-known securities litigators – on either side of the bar – recently wrote a four-part treatise, titled Who is Winning the Securities Class Action War – Plaintiffs or Defendants?, in which he discussed the various ways in which the defense bar is losing the “securities class action war.” 

Treasury Wine Decision Confirms Shift in Class Action Closure Process

October 5, 2017 | Blog | By John Nucci, Joel Rothman

Recently, in Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited (“Treasury Wine”), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered a primary judge’s class closure order which broke new ground in group action practice in Australia. 
In the long-running Halliburton securities litigation, a dispute has arisen between two rival class proponents.
As discussed in this space before, Australia is quickly becoming a key venue for securities class action litigation. With the release of its decision in Money Max Int. Pty. Ltd. (Trustee) v. QBE Insurance Group Limited, the Federal Court of Australia took another step toward making Australia a class-friendly location.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to decide a specific issue with potentially large ramifications.  In Endean v. British Columbia (Endean), the Court considered whether judges of the Canadian Superior Courts have jurisdiction to hear motions in a different province. 
As detailed repeatedly in this space, the Canadian court system has issued a number of decisions which have altered the practice of bringing – or defending against – a securities class action for secondary market misrepresentation.
The United States is a popular location for securities class actions, due in large part to its reputation as a generally plaintiff-friendly system. 
In January of 2016, this blog commented on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the seminal case of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green. 
As securities litigation becomes increasingly globalized, the Mintz Levin Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery practice is constantly monitoring and participating in jurisprudential developments in a number of countries, both alone and through collaboration with foreign counsel.
Under the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”), a statutory right of action exists for secondary market misrepresentation for any person who acquires or disposes of an issuer’s securities within the relevant time period.