Skip to main content

Peter M. Saparoff

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1725

Share:

Peter is an experienced securities litigator both on the plaintiff and defense side. He has defended over 100 cases and investigations. In addition, he chairs the Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery practice which has recovered nearly $7 billion for thousands of mutual funds and other institutional clients. The practice evaluates virtually every securities investor settlement in the world. The practice not only files claims for clients but also assists them in opting out and filing separate cases, both in the US and in international jurisdictions.

Peter co-chairs the firm’s Securities Litigation Practice. He is one of the nation’s leading securities litigators and he has represented clients in well over 100 cases, investigations, and proceedings throughout the country. He has successfully defended SEC investigations, class actions, derivative suits, stock exchange proceedings, and state securities investigations, and has handled numerous FINRA arbitrations, among other matters.

Peter, through the Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery Practice, also represents hundreds of institutional investors with respect to the monitoring and evaluation of securities class action settlements. Peter has recovered over $3 billion for institutional clients. He has represented various clients in opting out of or objecting to proposed class settlements and has represented institutions as plaintiffs in various actions. In this role he participates in virtually every securities action that is filed and thus has a unique perspective when representing clients in said cases.

He has succeeded in preventing the vast majority of the dozens of clients he has represented in SEC investigations from being named as defendants or respondents. In matters where the SEC has taken action, Peter has frequently negotiated bars or suspensions, which have enabled the clients to return to their businesses or professions without undue delay.

Peter has represented many clients in FINRA arbitrations and has tried FINRA cases to successful conclusions. He also serves as an FINRA arbitrator.

He is a frequent lecturer and author on securities matters, having written hundreds of articles and papers, including co-authoring the Securities Litigation chapter in the definitive Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education publication, Business Torts in Massachusetts (2016). He has been an Adjunct Professor of Securities Litigation at the Maine Law School. He speaks at many institutional investor and securities industry forums, and is frequently quoted in the press.

After law school, he served as law clerk to the Honorable A. J. Connor (D-NH) and the Honorable Frank M. Coffin, US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Education

  • Harvard Law School (JD)
  • Harvard University (BS)

Experience

  • Represented hundreds of defendants in securities class actions in all stages throughout the country. 
  • Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating in virtually all securities class actions, regulatory settlements, and other investor settlements. 
  • Represented institutional investors as plaintiffs in numerous cases involving securities claims. 
  • Represented mutual funds, investment advisors, and disinterested directors in various suits alleging excessive management fees, breaches of fiduciary duty, and other violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Participation in several cases where judicial decisions have established legal precedents in the area. 
  • Represented an officer who signed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications with respect to numerous financial statements that were subsequently restated, in which the SEC was convinced not to take any action.
  • Represented issuers, officers, directors, and employees in investigations relating to alleged financial fraud with respect to SEC filings, Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, shareholder reports, and press releases. 
  • Tried various FINRA cases, including representation of a branch manager in a lengthy FINRA arbitration proceeding regarding alleged “failure to supervise” and related charges in which the panel completely exonerated the branch manager. (The result is unique in that both the respondent broker-dealer and individual broker (represented by other counsel) were held liable for substantial damages.) 
  • Serve as a FINRA arbitrator. 
  • Utilized special litigation committees to have numerous derivative suits terminated at an early stage. 
  • Represented issuers, officers, and directors in investigations relating to alleged “leaks” to investors of “negative information” which was subsequently publicly disclosed. 
  • Represented institutional investors who allegedly traded on information gleaned from corporate officials or securities analysts prior to the “public dissemination.” 
  • Represented various individuals (officers, directors, venture capitalists) with respect to certain challenged trades. 
  • Represented issuers and individuals in investigations relating to trading in unregistered securities. 
  • Represented issuers in investigations relating to Regulation S. 
  • Represented issuers who have been victimized by short-sellers. 
  • Represented investment advisors with respect to issues arising in SEC inspections. 
  • Represented mutual fund account managers with respect to possible utilization of alleged investment opportunities of funds. 
  • Represented investment companies in investigations relating to valuation and pricing of portfolios. 
  • Represented transfer agents and custodians in investigations relating to various issues. 
  • Represented investment companies and advisers with respect to adequacy of compliance procedures. 
  • Represented broker-dealers and branch managers in “failure to supervise” investigations. 
  • Represented individuals with respect to alleged violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940. 
  • Represented real estate investment trusts, their officers, and trustees in investigations relating to adequacy of loan loss reserves. 
  • Represented banks with respect to adequacy of certain loan loss reserves. 
  • Represented CPAs in investigations relating to a wide variety of accounting issues. 
  • Represented individuals with respect to alleged “prime bank” schemes. 
     

Recognition & Awards

  • Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Securities Litigation (2004 – 2015)
  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent

Involvement

  • Chair, American Bar Association (ABA) Litigation Section Structured Financial Products, Hedge Fund and Mutual Fund Subcommittee
  • Frequent panelist, ALI-CLE programs
  • Adjunct Professor, Securities Litigation, Maine Law School (2013)
  • Member, American Law Institute
  • Member, ABA Business Section
  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Past Chair, Annual ALI-ABA Securities Litigation Program
  • Past advisor, Harvard Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop
  • Past chair, ABA Litigation Section Securities Litigation Committee
  • Past Division Director, ABA Litigation Section Securities Litigation Committee
  • Past member, ABA Special Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
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.
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.
First there was Libor.  Next came credit default swaps and foreign exchange.  Now, highlighted by the over $2 billion settlement reached in the Foreign Exchange Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs are pursuing a number of additional antitrust class actions against financial institutions alleging anti-competitive behavior in a number of markets affecting institutional investors.
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.” 
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 a June 13, 2017, ruling on a motion for partial summary judgment in the Ocwen Financial Corp. Securities Litigation (the “Ocwen Litigation”), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida determined Ocwen materially misrepresented in its securities filings and other public statements that its Executive Chairman would recuse himself from Ocwen’s transactions with companies in which the Executive Chairman also served as Chairman.
We have been following defendants’ motions to dismiss in the In re Lending Club Securities Litigation class action, No 3:16-cv-02627-WHA, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“the Lending Club Litigation”).
On May 9, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which had held that aspects of the Government’s bailout of AIG constituted an illegal exaction.

News & Press

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.

Events

Speaker