Skip to main content

Kevin C. Mortimer


[email protected]



Kevin engages in an expansive array of litigation matters. With prior experience as a project management operational consultant at a boutique mechanical engineering subcontracting firm and a large commercial real estate company, Kevin provides a well-informed perspective for groups concentrated on real estate disputes, land use law, and construction law. Kevin employs his educational background in the field of economics in his contributions to matters concerning institutional class action recovery, securities litigation, commercial litigation, and complex insurance coverage issues.

Kevin is also actively engaged in Mintz’s pro bono efforts. Kevin is a Co-chair of the “Lawyer for the Day” pro bono program at Boston’s Housing Court, providing legal representation in civil matters to low-income tenants seeking resolution of disputes with their landlords. He also takes full advantage of Mintz’s Medical Legal Partnership with Dana-Farber, which allies health care providers with legal advocates to improve the health and well-being of low-income cancer patients.

During his time in project management, Kevin provided assistance with contract revisions, proposal and pitch composition, research, zoning code reports, and the valuation of projected developments. Kevin also held a summer position with a law practice in Worcester, Massachusetts, where he gained experience conducting legal research and preparing contracts and memoranda.

While in law school, Kevin held the position of Online Editor of the New England Law Review, and was three-time recipient of both the Dean’s Scholarship and the New England Scholar Award. Kevin also ranked highest among his classmates in the courses of Labor Law, Negotiation, MA Practice and Procedure, Family Law, and Commercial Real Estate Capstone. Prior to law school, Kevin attended Trinity College, where he captained the NESCAC champion Trinity College Baseball Team and graduated as a member of Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society in Social Sciences.

Outside of the office, Kevin is a regular participant in the Mintz hockey team’s weekly skate.


  • New England Law (JD, magna cum laude)
  • Trinity College (BA, Economics)


  • Co-chair of Mintz’s Pro Bono Housing Court Program
  • Participant Captain for the “Lawyers, Bring Us Your Briefs Charity Drive,” providing undergarments to the homeless population of Boston (2015)
  • Member, Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society
  • Member, Trinity College Long Walk Society (2012 – Present)
  • Volunteer Athlete, Annual Wiffle Ball Challenge, Travis Roy Foundation (2014)
  • Team leader, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Walk for a Cure (2006 – Present)
  • Trinity College baseball team representative, Team Impact, a nonprofit that pairs children with life-threatening diseases with local college teams (2011 – 2012)
  • Team leader (2012) and participant (2008 – 2011), Halloween on Vernon, an event that offers Hartford’s underprivileged children a safe environment for trick-or-treating
  • Team leader (2012) and participant (2008 – 2011), Do-It-Day, an event that champions Hartford community service projects

Recent Insights

News & Press


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.
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.
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.
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.
Former U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, the Special Master appointed to investigate alleged improper billing by class plaintiffs’ firms in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Bank and Trust Company, recommended that the firms return up to $10.6 million of the $74.5 million in attorneys’ fees awarded to them after reaching a $300 million settlement in the underlying class action.
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff denied class counsel’s request to file under seal three supplemental agreements to a $2.95 billion settlement in the Petrobras Securities Litigation, and made the side agreements part of the public record.
On November 4, 2016, Judge Keith Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted preliminary approval of a $175 million settlement in the federal securities class action In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation between BP and Lead Plaintiffs for the “post-explosion” class.
On June 29, 2016, the Dutch Court of East Brabant dismissed a foundation’s claims against Rabobank Group for alleged unlawful selling of interest rate swaps because it failed to meet the requirement of the Dutch Claim Code that a foundation sufficiently safeguard the interests of its members.
Following up on our December 15 post on the debate over the best strategy to recover foreign securities losses, a collection of Dutch Foundations (known as Stichtings) negotiated a substantial collective settlement with Ageas SA/NV, the successor-in-interest to Fortis Holdings.
A December 22, 2015 decision of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida in In re Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities Litigation illustrates the impact that an investigation and order of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may have on a plaintiff’s ability to allege actionable false statements by an issuer regarding its internal controls.

News & Press

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.