BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO DEFENDANTS
Pomerantz is also sole Lead Counsel in In Strougo v. Barclays PLC, a class action alleging fraud in Barclays’ “dark pool,” a private trading venue where investors trade stocks almost anonymously. During the Class Period, Barclays’ dark pool catapulted into the financial stratosphere, with market share growth of 33% per year, as Barclay falsely promised investors that it would police the pool to “protect [clients] from predatory trading.” In fact, not only did Barclays allow aggressive traders into its dark pool, but it wooed them with perks that gave them a competitive edge over traditional traders. In November 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of a class of Barclays’ investors and, citing its own recent decision in Petrobras, held that direct evidence from plaintiffs of price impact is not necessary, at the class certification stage, to demonstrate market efficiency. The Second Circuit also held that defendants seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance must do so by a preponderance of the evidence, confirming that plaintiffs have no burden to show price impact at the class certification stage—a significant win for plaintiffs.
READ ABOUT THE DECISION HERE
FAVORABLE PRECEDENT ON ASCERTAINABILITY
Pomerantz, as Lead Counsel, scored a significant victory for investors
in In re Petrobras Sec. Litig. (2d Cir. July 7, 2017), one of the largest securities class actions pending in the United States. in which Brazil’s energy giant, Petrobras, is accused of concealing a sprawling, decades-long kickback scheme from investors. The scandal has ensnared not only Petrobras' former executives but also Brazilian politicians, including former presidents and at least one third of the Brazilian Congress. According to plaintiffs, defendants’ fraudulent scheme involved billions of dollars in kickbacks, tens of billions of dollars in overstated assets, as well as significant losses to Petrobras investors. In July 2017, the Second Circuit largely rejected defendants’ arguments to appeal the certification of the classes proposed by plaintiffs, remanding the case back to the district court. The Court squarely rejected defendants’ invitation to adopt the heightened ascertainability requirement promulgated by the Third Circuit—a victory not only for bondholders in securities class actions, but also for plaintiffs in consumer fraud and other class actions where documentation regarding class membership is not readily attainable.
READ ABOUT THE DECISION HERE
POMERANTZ LEADS HISTORIC PETROBRAS SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
Brazil’s energy giant, Petrobras, is accused of a sprawling kickback scheme that involves some of the country's top politicians; Pomerantz leads a group of consolidated class actions on behalf of injured investors.
In March 2015, Judge Rakoff appointed Pomerantz to lead a consolidated group of securities class actions over revelations of rampant corruption at Brazil’s state-run oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro SA (“Petrobras”). Pomerantz represents lead plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. (“USS”). On July 9, 2015, Pomerantz won a major victory for Petrobras investors when Judge Rakoff rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss the action.
In February 2016, New York U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted class certification in the Petrobras securities litigation, stating:
“. . . [O]n the basis not only of USS's counsel's prior experience but also the Court's observation of its advocacy over the many months since it was appointed lead counsel, the Court concludes that Pomerantz, the proposed class counsel, is "qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation. . . [T]he Pomerantz firm has both the skill and resources to represent the Classes adequately.”
AT THE VANGUARD
OF LITIGATION AGAINST BP
Additional Successes in the Landmark BP Litigation In October 2014, Pomerantz once again secured crucial victories in its ground-breaking litigation over BP plc's ("BP") 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. This time, Pomerantz established the right of individual foreign investors who purchased foreign-traded shares of a foreign corporation to pursue claims for securities fraud in a U.S. court, thereby overcoming obstacles created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 read more