Securities Litigation
Since its inception over 28 years ago, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has devoted a substantial portion of its practice to class action securities fraud litigation.
Faruqi & Faruqi’s lawyers have years of litigation, financial, accounting and securities experience. This synergy of legal and business acumen is just one of the reasons why the firm has achieved success and is recognized by the courts for its zeal and skill in representing large investors in large and complex securities litigation.
Faruqi & Faruqi lawyers have helped to recover hundreds of millions of dollars for investors in cases such as In re Maxim Integrated Prod. Sec. Litig., No. 08-0832 (N.D.Cal.) ($173 million); Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund vs. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 00-2838 (N.D.Ga.) ($137.5 million); In re TyCom Ltd. Sec. Litig., MDL No. 02-1335 (D.N.H.) ($79 million; In re ArthroCare Sec. Litig. No. 08-0574 (W.D. Tex.) ($74 million); and In re Providian Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 01-3952 (N.D. Cal.) ($65 million); In re Olsten Corp. Secs. Litig., C.A. No. 97-CV-5056 (E.D.N.Y.) (recovered $25 million dollars for class members). In In re Purchase Pro Inc. Securities Litig., Master File No. CV-S-01-0483-JLQ (D. Nev. 2001), as co-lead counsel for the class, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP secured a $24.2 million settlement in a securities fraud litigation. As noted by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush in approving the settlement, “I feel that counsel for plaintiffs evidenced that they were and are skilled in the field of securities litigation.
Faruqi & Faruqi devotes a substantial portion of its practice to providing portfolio monitoring services for large investment and institutional funds. The firm maintains a proprietary, confidential, and secure portfolio monitoring service for large investors and public funds. Our team of highly skilled professionals provides such investors with information prior to, or at the onset of, shareholder litigation so that the fund may assess the impact of negative news on the assets in its portfolios. As a companion to our portfolio monitoring services, we also provide our clients with advice on claims administration services to larger investors.
Some of the firm’s most recent achievements and current cases include the following:
• In re Tahoe Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:17-cv-01868-RFBNJK (D. Nev.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) concerning Tahoe Resources’ Escobal mining project in Southeastern Guatemala, including the legality of the Company’s license to mine, and the presence of and consultation with the local indigenous population that was actively opposing the project. The case was litigated from 2017 through 2023 and recently settled for $19,500,000.
• In re Peloton Interactive, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-02369- CBA-PK (E.D.N.Y.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning injuries and property damage caused by Peloton’s signature treadmill, the Tread+. The case settled for $13,950,000.
• Lowthorp v. Mesa Air Group, Inc., et al., 2:20-cv-00648-MTL (D. Ariz.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent DeKalb County Pension Fund as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) by issuing false and misleading statements and omissions in Mesa Air Group’s IPO prospectus that omitted adverse trends and risks regarding the company’s operations. The case settled for $5,000,000.
• Wang v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-2105- WJM-MEH (D. Colo.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning the likelihood that Ampio’s drug application with the FDA would be approved. After filing the amended complaint, the parties were able to resolve the case after a mediation in early January 2024.
• Halman Aldubi Provident & Pension Funds Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and certain of its officers, misled the market in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act when they claimed that the success of Teva’s drug treatment for multiple sclerosis called Copaxone was due to factors like the drug’s safety, efficacy and patient outreach programs, when in actuality the success was due to their scheme with a specialty pharmacy to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars through charities to pay for Copaxone patient Medicare co-payments, which allowed Teva to raise the price of Copaxone to over 19 times the rate of inflation. The scheme led to civil charges by the DOJ against the company for violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the case as a class action. Defendants have filed a petition with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the district court’s class certification order.
• In re Revance Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:21-cv-09585- AMO (N.D. Cal.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent individual investors as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act regarding the likelihood that Revance’s proposed drug application to treat skin wrinkles would be approved by the FDA. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending with the Court.
• In re Lumen Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00286- TAD-KDM (W.D. La.): the firm was appointed co-lead counsel to represent individual investors. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning the Company’s implementation of its plan to transition its legacy cable business to a new quantum fiber optics business. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending with the Court.
• In re Lumen Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00286- TAD-KDM (W.D. La.): the firm was appointed co-lead counsel to represent individual investors. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning the Company’s implementation of its plan to transition its legacy cable business to a new quantum fiber optics business. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending with the Court.
• Hawes v. Argo Blockchain plc, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07305-CM (S.D.N.Y.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning Argo’s ability to fund and expand its cryptocurrency blockchain mining operations at its Texas facility. The parties are in the process of briefing the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
• Alms v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.: 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning the Company’s newly launched Iris+ light detection and ranging sensor that it is promoting to car manufacturers to for autonomous driving features. The amended complaint has been filed and the parties are in the process of briefing the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Lim v. Edward Hightower & Adam Kroll, Case No. 4:23-cv-01454-BYP (N.D. Ohio): the firm was appointed sole lead counsel to represent an individual investor as sole lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that defendants, officers of Lordstown Motors Corporation (“Lordstown”), made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act concerning the deterioration of the business relationship between Lordstown and the Chinese electronics corporation, Foxconn, which was having a material negative impact on Company’s operations. Lead Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due to be filed in December 2023.