BRIAN E. PASTUSZENSKI

Brian Pastuszenski, a senior partner in Goodwin Procter’s Litigation Group and co-chair of the firm’s Securities Litigation & SEC Enforcement Practice, has achieved national prominence in the defense of securities class action and shareholder litigation matters and proceedings brought by the SEC and other regulatory organizations, and the related insurance and indemnification issues that such matters involve. For the past six years Mr. Pastuszenski has been lead defense counsel for Countrywide Financial Corporation (formerly the largest mortgage lender in the country and now a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation) in numerous securities and ERISA class action, shareholder derivative and institutional investor cases filed in courts across the country arising out of the capital markets crisis that began in late 2007.

For several consecutive years Mr. Pastuszenski has been recognized as one of the leading lawyers in the country in the areas of securities litigation and corporate governance by preeminent, peer-reviewed publications including Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, The Best Lawyers in America, Lawdragon 500 Guide to the 500 Leading Lawyers in America and Benchmark Litigation Guide to America’s Leading Litigation Firms & Attorneys. 

• The 2013 edition of the Chambers rankings quotes client descriptions of Mr. Pastuszenski as “phenomenal” and “a really intelligent lawyer” who is “tireless, responsive and experienced.”
• The 2012 edition of the Chambers rankings includes the following client reference: “According to one source, he is ‘one of the finest securities lawyers I have ever seen; he is a very humble, open guy and I have always felt that he was a star.’”
• The 2010 edition of the Chambers rankings includes a client assessment that Mr. Pastuszenski is “a highly regarded lawyer with an excellent reputation.”  
• The 2009 edition of the Chambers ranking quotes a client as saying: “Brian Pastuszenski has ‘an impeccable work ethic and fantastic way of dealing with senior business executives’ in securities litigation.”  

Mr. Pastuszenski is also highly respected by his competitors and peers. For example, the global chairman of a top national law firm’s litigation department and securities litigation and enforcement practice said this recently about Mr. Pastuszenski when asked by a media publication to name a litigator he feared going up against:

• “A litigator I have come to admire while being in the trenches with him is Brian Pastuszenski of Goodwin Procter. Brian has been deeply involved in the mortgage-backed securities litigation involving Countrywide. Having seen Brian argue countless motions and appellate arguments, I can say he possesses a top-notch legal mind and is a compelling advocate for his client. Needless to say, I’m glad he’s on my side.”

The chair of the securities litigation practice at another leading national law firm also said the following about Mr. Pastuszenski when asked to name the one lawyer outside his firm who had impressed him:

• “I’ve always admired Brian Pastuszenski of Goodwin Procter LLP. He is smart, meticulous, driven and has probably the coolest head I’ve seen when the bombs are dropping.”

Mr. Pastuszenski’s practice is concentrated in the areas of securities class action and shareholder litigation defense, defense of SEC proceedings, internal corporate investigations, corporate governance and compliance matters, merger and acquisition-related litigation, and other high-stakes business litigation.

WORK FOR CLIENTS

Mr. Pastuszenski is currently lead defense counsel for Countrywide Financial Corporation, formerly an S&P 100 corporation before its acquisition in 2008 by Bank of America Corporation and the largest mortgage lender in the United States. The matters Mr. Pastuszenski has been defending include a multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL) pending in federal district court in Los Angeles, numerous appeals to the federal Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Second Circuits, the California and Delaware state appellate courts, and numerous other federal and state courts across the country. The rulings that courts have issued in these matters have helped shape the development of the law in the United States, particularly in regard to claims by investors that bought mortgage-backed securities prior to the collapse of the housing and capital markets in 2007.

Mr. Pastuszenski’s other matters include representation of financial institutions and publicly traded operating companies in securities and shareholder derivative matters in cases filed in federal and state courts across the country, including federal securities class action litigation against a Fortune 100 financial services and insurance company and its board of directors challenging a nearly billion dollar secondary offering of debt securities in which plaintiffs attacked the company’s valuation of, and financial accounting for, several hundred million dollars of subprime mortgage-backed securities held for investment on the company’s balance sheet.

Over the years Mr. Pastuszenski has led numerous internal corporate investigations for audit committees and other special board committees into financial accounting and corporate governance-related matters. For example, he has led several internal investigations relating to financial accounting for stock option grants, including an investigation for the audit committee of the board of a Fortune 500 technology company.

Mr. Pastuszenski has also represented numerous clients in connection with regulatory proceedings brought by the SEC and other regulators relating to possible accounting irregularities, the accuracy and completeness of corporate disclosures to investors (including financial guidance), and securities trading by corporate officers and directors, among other matters. For example, he recently was involved in a several-year-long SEC investigation of a major mutual fund organization arising out of certain trading desk practices, and has handled regulatory investigations brought by the SEC and a state attorney general’s office on behalf of a Fortune 100 diversified financial services company.

In addition to defending securities and shareholder litigation matters across the country, Mr. Pastuszenski spends a significant amount of his time advising senior management and boards of directors on how to minimize securities and shareholder liability risks, and how best to manage crises when they occur. His clients have included financial services and insurance companies, mutual funds, hedge funds, venture capital firms, manufacturers of computer hardware and software, semiconductor manufacturers, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life sciences companies, one of the world’s largest water filtration and purification companies, healthcare companies, telecommunications services providers, one of the leading Internet portals, information and printing technology providers, and other high technology companies.

Mr. Pastuszenski’s representative clients have included (among numerous others) Countrywide Financial Corporation, Citrix Systems, Inc., the Acorn Mutual Funds, Lycos, Inc., Ionics, Incorporated.  Alkermes, Inc., Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc. (now Alere, Inc.), AsiaInfo Holdings, ON Semiconductor Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, Lionbridge Technologies, Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., Cognos Incorporated, Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., Presstek, Inc., former members of the Audit Committee of Peregrine Systems, Inc., and former senior executives of AOL-Time Warner, Rhythms Netconnections and Able Laboratories, among numerous other publicly traded companies.

Mr. Pastuszenski represents his clients tenaciously, and prides himself on the results he has achieved for them. Representative recent matters include the following:

• Countrywide Financial Corporation Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action (Luther) Litigation (2012-13): Defeated plaintiffs’ attempt to return to state court this putative mortgage-backed securities class action brought under the federal Securities Act of 1933 involving 430 MBS offerings concerning several hundred billion dollars of securities offered. This putative class action was filed in state court more than five years ago in late 2007, and originally removed in 2007 to federal court under a different legal theory but remanded. In the interim, Mr. Pastuszenski and his team in January 2010 won dismissal of the case on the grounds that state courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear 1933 Act class action suits. After an intermediate California state appellate court declined to affirm that ruling and review of that ruling was sought in both the California Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, the case was then removed a second time in June 2012. This removal was based on the existence of federal removal jurisdiction under the US bankruptcy laws due to the bankruptcy filing in mid-2012 by certain of the third-party lenders that had originated loans backing the offerings in question. This class action case is now being coordinated as part of the Countrywide Mortgage-Backed Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding pending before federal district Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in Los Angeles and was settled in principle in early 2013, after removal to federal court.
• FDIC as Receiver for Strategic Capital Bank (2013):  Won dismissal with prejudice of this suit brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank that had purchased mortgage-back securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation alleging claims under the federal Securities Act of 1933. The case was dismissed in its entirety by the federal district court in Los Angeles on statute of limitations and repose grounds. This case is particularly noteworthy because of the court’s nationally significant rulings that the filing of class action litigation in 2007 did not toll the running of applicable statutes of limitation and repose under the US Supreme Court’s American Pipe class action tolling rule because the class litigation had been filed in state court, and because of the district court’s rejection of the recent ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ostensibly expanding the scope of standing for plaintiffs that file putative class action cases on behalf of investors in mortgage-backed securities offerings. 
• FDIC as Receiver for Security Savings Bank (2013):  Won dismissal with prejudice of this suit brought by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank that had purchased mortgage-back securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation alleging claims under the federal Securities Act of 1933. The case was dismissed in its entirety by the federal district court in Los Angeles on statute of limitations and repose grounds. 
• Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of America Corp. (2013):  Won dismissal with prejudice of the vast majority of the plaintiffs’ claims in this suit pending in federal district court for the Central District of California challenging disclosures made in connection with the public offering and sale of mortgage-backed securities.  Also defeated the insurance-company plaintiffs’ motion to seek immediate appeal or certification to the Iowa Supreme Court of legal rulings made by the district court concerning the interpretation of Iowa law in regard to the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiffs’ state law claims. 
• Western & Southern Group of Insurance Companies v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2012): Won dismissal with prejudice of this suit brought by Western & Southern Life Insurance Company and several affiliates asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 as well as state statutory and common law claims relating to public offerings of mortgage-backed securities by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation, formerly one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country. The case was dismissed in its entirety by the federal district court in Los Angeles on statute of limitations and repose grounds and for failure to allege an actionable misstatement, among other grounds.
• Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2012): Won dismissal with prejudice of this putative securities class action lawsuit alleging claims under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 and Connecticut statutory securities law concerning mortgage-backed securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The case was dismissed in its entirety by the federal district court in Los Angeles on statute of limitations and repose grounds.
• American Fidelity Assurance Company v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2012): Won dismissal with prejudice of this suit by an institutional purchaser of mortgage-back securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation alleging claims under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933. The case was dismissed in its entirety by the federal district court in Los Angeles on statute of limitations and repose grounds.
• SRM Global Fund Limited Partnership v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2011): Successfully argued and won appeal in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City filed by SRM Global, a multibillion-dollar offshore hedge fund that sued Countrywide Financial Corporation for allegedly not disclosing its true financial condition to shareholders prior to its $4 billion merger with Bank of America Corporation in July 2008. The Court of Appeals agreed that SRM had not adequately alleged facts showing (among other things) that any misstatements had been made, affirming the federal district court’s dismissal of the complaint. SRM alleged that it lost nearly $700 million on its purchases of Countrywide common stock when the share price dropped in the wake of the capital markets crisis that began in the third quarter of 2007.
• United Financial Casualty Co. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2011): Won dismissal with prejudice of this suit brought by Progressive Insurance and affiliates in federal court in Los Angeles asserting securities fraud claims under the Securities Act of 1934 and state law relating to public offerings of mortgage-backed securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The case was dismissed in its entirety on statute of limitations and repose grounds.
• Allstate Insurance Co. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2011): Won dismissal in substantial part of this suit originally filed in federal court in New York City by Allstate Insurance and affiliates asserting securities fraud claims under the Securities Act of 1934, non-fraud claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and various state law claims relating to public offerings of mortgage-backed securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation. All federal securities claims and most state law claims have been dismissed from the case on statute of limitations and repose grounds.
• Countrywide Mortgage-Backed Securities Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding (2011): Successfully argued before the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for the formation of a multidistrict litigation proceeding (“MDL”) to centralize securities cases alleging misstatements in connection with the public offering of mortgage-backed securities by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation. That MDL proceeding is currently pending in the Central District of California before the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer. 
• Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Countrywide Financial Corporation (2011): Won dismissal with prejudice of suit brought by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, one of the largest public pension funds in the world, asserting securities fraud claims under the Securities Act of 1934, non-fraud claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and California state law claims relating to public offerings of mortgage-backed securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The case originally was filed in state court, and then successfully removed to federal court in Los Angeles. The case was dismissed in its entirety on statute of limitations and repose grounds.
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action (Maine State) Litigation (2011): Won dismissal of second amended complaint in putative class action lawsuit brought in federal court in Los Angeles, which originally asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to approximately 430 separate public offerings of mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) issued from 2004 to 2007 by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation, formerly one of the largest residential mortgage lenders in the country. In a ruling of national significance, the court agreed that class action plaintiffs have standing to represent other MBS purchasers only if such plaintiffs purchased the same tranche of security those other investors did (each MBS offering typically has multiple tranches, each a separate security). In addition, the court agreed that limitations periods continue to run despite the filing of a class action complaint as to all MBS tranches for which no named plaintiff has standing to sue.
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Debenture Securities (Centaur Classic Arbitrage Fund) Litigation (2011): Won dismissal of securities suit brought in federal court in Los Angeles by 46 hedge funds concerning the offering of $4 billion in debentures by Countrywide Financial Corporation. Plaintiffs’ state law securities claims were dismissed with prejudice as untimely under the applicable statutes of limitations, and the federal law claims were dismissed in part for failure to allege the details of their alleged purchases, the statements on which they allegedly relied and the basis for their alleged losses with the requisite factual particularity. The suit was filed in the wake of the dismissal of a putative class action (see description below of the Argent Classic matter) relating to the same securities, which the court declined to certify the case as a class action.
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action (Maine State) Litigation (2010): Won dismissal of putative class action lawsuit brought in federal court in Los Angeles asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to hundreds of public offerings of mortgage-backed securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety, with leave to amend, for lack of standing and on statute of limitations grounds. In comments released to the media, Bank of America Corporation (Countrywide’s parent corporation) said it “expects that the Court’s ruling will result in a substantial reduction in the number of offerings at issue in the Maine State case, from 427 offerings (which had a total notional amount at issuance of approximately $352 billion) to no more than approximately 22 offerings (which had a total notional amount at issuance of approximately $31 billion).”
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Debenture Securities Class Action Litigation (2009): Defeated class certification of lawsuit brought in federal district court in Los Angeles on behalf of a putative class of institutional buyers of $4 billion of debentures issued by Countrywide Financial Corporation. The suit alleged misstatements by Countrywide regarding its loan origination practices.
• Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation Securities Class Action Litigation (2009): Won dismissal of securities class action litigation in federal district court in Arizona arising out of the restatement of certain financial statements by this leading manufacturer of dermatological and aesthetic pharmaceutical products. The case concerned the company’s financial accounting for returns of expired and short-dated product. The court granted our motion to dismiss the case in its entirety against both the company and the individual management defendants, concluding that the complaint failed to allege any violation of the securities laws.
• Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc. Securities Class Action Litigation (2009): Won dismissal with prejudice of securities class action litigation brought under the Securities Act of 1933 against this leading medical diagnostic products company (now known as Alere, Inc.) and its board of directors and senior management. This class action concerned a $737 million secondary offering of equity securities and challenged the Company’s disclosures concerning the costs associated with its integration of acquired companies.
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Derivative  Litigation (2008): Won dismissal with prejudice of shareholder derivative litigation concerning Countrywide Financial Corporation on the grounds that the plaintiff shareholders no longer had the right to pursue the case when they ceased being Countrywide shareholders after its acquisition by Bank of America. The suit was filed in federal district court in Los Angeles and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Countrywide’s former directors and senior management in regard to the company’s loan origination practices.
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Debenture Securities Class Action Litigation (2008): Won dismissal without prejudice for Countrywide Financial Corporation of securities class action litigation brought in federal district court in Los Angeles on behalf of a putative class of qualified institutional buyers of approximately $4 billion of Countrywide debentures sold through private placements. The suit alleged misstatements by Countrywide regarding its loan origination practices.
• Countrywide Financial Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation (2008): Won dismissal for Countrywide Financial Corporation and its board of directors of shareholder derivative litigation filed in Delaware federal district court on the grounds that the plaintiff shareholders no longer had the right to pursue the case when they ceased being Countrywide shareholders after its acquisition by Bank of America. Claiming damages exceeding $2 billion, plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Company’s board of directors in connection with the board’s decision to repurchase shares of Countrywide common stock in late 2006 and early 2007 at then-market prices. The company’s common stock declined in price several months later in the wake of the seizing up of the credit and capital markets. The court’s dismissal ruling is significant in that it addresses and resolves an inconsistency between opinions from the Delaware Supreme Court and the federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the effect of a stock-for-stock merger on the ability of a shareholder of a Delaware corporation to pursue a derivative case.
• SEC Investigation Concerning Trading Desk Practices (2008): Represented former star manager of one of the largest and most successful mutual funds in the country in SEC formal investigation concerning equity trading desk practices in relation to allocation of trades to brokerage firms. Resolved favorably for client.
• Alkermes, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (2007): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of shareholder derivative litigation relating to accounting for employee stock option grants against this leading life sciences company, which provides the drug industry with various technology platforms for the controlled, sustained-release delivery of drug products. No settlement monies were paid.
• Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation (2007): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of securities class action litigation filed in federal district court in New Jersey under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the initial public offering of the world’s leading electronic market for the trading of telephone call and data communications capacity. Mr. Pastuszenski successfully argued to the court, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ allegations were inconsistent with and contradicted by the company’s public disclosures. The court agreed, and threw the case out. Plaintiffs chose not to appeal and dropped the case. No settlement monies were paid.
• Alkermes, Inc. Securities Litigation (2005): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of securities class action litigation filed in federal court in Boston against this leading life sciences company. The litigation related to the timing of FDA approval of Risperdal Consta, an injectable, sustained-release version of the best-selling oral antischizophrenia drug Risperdal (risperidone). We argued to the court that the case should be thrown out as lacking any legal or factual merit whatsoever. After a federal judge concluded that the entire lawsuit should be dismissed, plaintiffs chose voluntarily to drop their case. No settlement monies were paid.
• Peregrine Systems Securities Litigation (2005, 2004, 2003): Obtained dismissal of all securities fraud class action claims filed in federal court in San Diego, California against our clients, three former outside directors and members of the audit committee of Peregrine Systems, Inc., a San Diego-based leading maker of enterprise software. After presenting oral argument before the California Court of Appeal in February 2005, also obtained dismissal of related litigation filed in California Superior Court against our outside director clients alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Pastuszenski also defended these former members of the Peregrine Audit Committee in several other related shareholder lawsuits in California state court, as well as in a lawsuit alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty in San Diego Superior Court brought by the litigation trustee appointed in Peregrine Systems’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. All of these litigations concerned Peregrine’s restatement of over a half-billion dollars of revenues recorded over a three-year period, its understatement of roughly $2 billion of losses and its later bankruptcy filing.
• AOL-Time Warner Securities Litigation (2005, 2004): Obtained dismissal of securities fraud and related class action claims filed in state courts in California and Ohio against our client, the former Chief Technology Officer of AOL.
• Presstek, Inc. Securities Litigation (2004): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of securities class action litigation filed in federal court in New Hampshire against this world leader in digital printing technology. Mr. Pastuszenski argued to the court that plaintiffs’ allegations failed to satisfy the strict rules applicable to securities claims, and the court agreed. The claims against our clients were thrown out in their entirety. The plaintiffs initially appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals, but ultimately dropped the appeal voluntarily. No settlement monies were paid.
• RICO Class Action Litigation Against Leading Mutual Fund Organization (2003): Obtained dismissal of class action litigation filed in federal court in Nashville, Tenn. against our clients, one of the world’s largest mutual fund organizations and two of its senior officials. The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, as well as Tennessee state law, arising out of the alleged marketing activities of a public company in which the mutual fund organization had invested. The claims against our clients were thrown out in their entirety, and with prejudice. No settlement monies were paid.
• Lycos, Inc. Securities Litigation (2003): Very favorably settled this securities class action litigation against web portal Lycos, Inc. (which arose out of Lycos’ announcement of a proposed multibillion-dollar merger with USA Networks) for a tiny fraction of the potential damages had plaintiffs prevailed on their claims. The settlement was funded entirely by insurance.
• SEC Investigation of Financial Accounting Restatement By Multinational Corporation (2003): Quickly resolved SEC investigation into this multinational corporation’s restatement of prior fiscal quarters. After meeting with SEC enforcement staff immediately after announcement of the restatement and demonstrating in our written submissions why the restatement reflected no effort to mislead the investing public, the SEC informed us that it had decided to close the investigation and not pursue any enforcement action. (Client’s name withheld due to non-public nature of SEC investigation.)
• Sipex Corp. Securities Litigation (2002): Obtained dismissal of securities class action litigation against this leading maker of semiconductor devices that alleged improper revenue recognition on sales to distributors. From the outset, we told plaintiffs’ counsel that the litigation was meritless, and pressed them to drop it. Also asked the court to throw the case out due to non-compliance with the “lead plaintiff” provisions of the 1995 securities reform legislation, arguing that it was an opportunistic, lawyer-driven attempt to capitalize on a general downturn in the semiconductor industry. In the face of this pressure, the litigation was dropped. No settlement monies were paid.
• Ecometry Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (2002): Quickly resolved shareholder derivative litigation in Florida state court seeking to stop management-led buyout of this publicly traded Florida company, enabling the transaction to proceed and close. Lawsuit was resolved in just a few months in exchange for modest award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel. No other settlement monies were paid.
• ACT Manufacturing, Inc. Securities Litigation (2000): U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of securities fraud class action litigation against one of the 10 largest electronics contract manufacturers in the world which alleged improper recognition of revenue and other accounting irregularities stemming from a $16 million inventory shortfall. No settlement monies were paid.
• Individual, Inc. Securities Litigation (1999): U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of securities class action litigation against this online news service provider which challenged its failure to disclose alleged rift between the CEO and the Board of Directors in its initial public offering prospectus. The opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in this case clarified the law in the First Circuit on the liability of public companies under the Securities Act of 1933 for disclosures made in connection with the public offering of securities, and to this day remains one of the leading opinions nationally on this issue.
• Telebit Corp. Merger Litigation (1999): Appeals Court affirmed dismissal of shareholder class action litigation challenging $350 million merger of network products manufacturer Telebit Corp. into Cisco Systems. No settlement monies were paid.
• Cognos Incorporated Securities Litigation (1998): Convinced plaintiffs’ attorneys to drop their securities class action against our client, Ottawa, Canada-based Cognos, the world’s leading supplier of business intelligence software tools. No settlement monies were paid.
• ParcPlace Software Securities Litigation (1997): Convinced plaintiffs’ attorneys to drop their class action claims against our venture capital fund clients after telling them that we intended to ask the court to fine them monetarily for bringing frivolous claims against our clients. No settlement monies were paid.
• Copley Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation (1995): After we had convinced the court to throw out 28 of 29 alleged misrepresentations in this securities class action (which claimed concealment of alleged problems in the manufacture of this leading generic drug company’s two best-selling products), settled all claims for a small fraction of the potential damages had plaintiffs prevailed on their claims.

Mr. Pastuszenski’s securities and shareholder litigation matters have involved allegations of insider trading, market manipulation, improper revenue recognition and other alleged accounting irregularities, self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty, and inaccurate earnings and revenue projections, among other issues. His securities and shareholder litigation practice is national in scope. He has represented both United States and foreign-based issuers and their directors and officers in securities and corporate governance matters across the country, including matters in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington State and Washington, D.C., among others. Mr. Pastuszenski has significant experience in mediating, arbitrating and trying securities and financial fraud-related matters, including serving as an arbitrator in a $25 million accounting malpractice litigation between a big 5 accounting firm and the U.S. Department of Justice.

For several years until the successful resolution of the matter via a global settlement, Mr. Pastuszenski represented numerous public companies that were sued in the IPO “allocation” class action litigation cases in federal court in New York City, which attacked the way IPO underwriters allegedly allocated shares in “hot” IPOs to their customers. These cases together constituted one of the largest securities class action litigations ever filed in the United States. He was appointed to serve on a committee of six law firms that represented issuer defendants in those cases and that served as a liaison between the issuer defendants, on the one hand, and the court, the plaintiffs and the underwriters on the other hand. Mr. Pastuszenski also was one of the principal authors of the consolidated motion to dismiss briefs that resulted in dismissal of the securities fraud claims against a significant number of the several hundred public companies that had been sued in these cases.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

Mr. Pastuszenski is past chair of the Business Litigation Committee of the Boston Bar Association.

MEDIA

Mr. Pastuszenski writes and speaks nationally to the business community on securities and shareholder litigation, corporate governance and compliance, and related insurance matters. Mr. Pastuszenski is also regularly quoted on these matters in national newspapers and business publications.

BAR AND COURT ADMISSIONS

Mr. Pastuszenski is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the federal district court for the District of Colorado, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First and Second Circuits, the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. He also has been admitted pro hac vice in numerous other federal and state courts across the country.

RECOGNITION

Mr. Pastuszenski has been recognized as a leader in his field by preeminent, peer-reviewed publications including Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, The Best Lawyers in America, Lawdragon 500 Guide to the 500 Leading Lawyers in America and Benchmark Litigation Guide to America’s Leading Litigation Firms & Attorneys.  He also has been recognized by Boston magazine as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Massachusetts, and for several consecutive years has been selected a “Massachusetts Super Lawyer” by the same publication.