Brower Piven

A Professional Corporation

Brower Piven’s experience in complex appellate matters ranges from cases at all levels of the federal and state appellate court systems. Our attorneys have been involved in obtaining appellate victories in commercial disputes where the stakes have involved billions of dollars. While we typically handle appeals on our own, other law firms often ask us to work with them on their appeals. Brower Piven is known for being creative appellate lawyers.


Some of our significant appellate representations include:


Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010).  In 2003, a group of investors filed suit against Merck & Co. accusing the company of defrauding investors and hiding the serious safety issues relating to Vioxx.  The district court dismissed the entire lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to file their lawsuit within the required time period.  On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had timely filed their lawsuit, and allowed the case to continue. In terms of damages, many experts consider Merck to be the largest ever federal securities fraud action.


Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P., 634 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 2011).  The district court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.  On appeal, Brower Piven successfully argued that the plaintiffs’ complaint had properly alleged that Blackstone had made material omissions and misstatements in its Registration Statement, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. This landmark decision is regularly relied upon by jurists and plaintiffs’ lawyers alike. 634 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 2011).


Lambrecht v. O’Neal, 3 A.3d 277 (Del. 2010).  In a certified question from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Delaware Supreme Court was asked to decide whether plaintiffs in a double-derivative action against an acquired company needed to show, in addition to owning shares in the acquired company, that they also owned shares in the acquiring company and that the acquiring company owned shares in the acquired company.  Our firm successfully persuaded a unanimous en banc Delaware Supreme Court to answer the question in the negative, striking a blow to the corporate defendants hoping for a quick dismissal.


Shenker v. Laureate Educ., Inc., 983 A.2d 408 (Md. 2009).  Brower Piven successfully argued for Appellants in the Maryland Court of Appeals, Shenker v. Laureate Educ., Inc., 2009 Md. LEXIS 837 (Md. Nov. 12, 2009), which is the first authoritative case in Maryland to articulate that in a change of control merger or acquisition transaction, directors of public companies incorporated in Maryland are obligated to maximize shareholder value and to disclose all information necessary to allow shareholders to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of a particular transaction. The decision overturned a decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which had held that there was no such direct cause of action.


Other Representations:

  • In re Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N.D. Cal. (NVIDIA Sec. Litig.), 586 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009)
  • In re FoxHollow Technologies., Inc., 359 F. App’x 802 (9th Cir. 2009)
  • Freedman v. Comcast Corp., 988 A.2d 68 (Md. Ct. App. 2010)
  • Glasow v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 696 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 2005)
  • Jelinek v. Capital Research & Mgmt. Co., 448 F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2011)
  • In re Immersion Corporation Sec. Litig., 12-15100 (9th Cir.)
  • Ingram, et al. v. Vivus, Inc., 12-17398 (9th Cir.)
  • Kadel v. Flood (Homebanc Sec. Litig.), 427 F. App’x 778 (11th Cir. 2011)
  • Kaplan v. Charlier, 426 F. App’x 547 (9th Cir. 2011)
  • In re Karkus (Spectranetics Sec. Litig.), 09-1500, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24559 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2010)
  • Kleinman v. Elan Corp., 11-3706 (2d Cir.)
  • Maz Partners LP v. PHC, Inc. (In re PHC S’holder Litig.), 762 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. Mass. 2014)
  • Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Assoc. v. MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc., 641 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2011)
  • In re Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, Sec. & Derivative Litig., 12-2496 (4th Cir.)
  • Pearlstein v. Blackberry Ltd., 15-3991 (2d Cir.)
  • Phillips v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 10-15910, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2012)
  • In re Research In Motion Ltd. Sec. Litig., 13-1602 (2d Cir.)
  • Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 513 S.E.2d 598 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
  • R.W. Grand Lodge of F. & A.M. of Penn. v. Salomon Bros., 425 F. App’x 25 (2d Cir. 2011)
  • Sanchez v. Crocs, Inc., 11-1142 (10th Cir.)
  • In re SFBC Int’l Inc., Securities & Derivative Litig., 310 F. App’x 556 (3d Cir. 2009)
  • In re Soda, 393 F. App’x 507 (9th Cir. 2010)
  • Sollins v. O’Neal (Merrill Lynch Derivative Litig.), 11-1589 (2d Cir.)
  • Segal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2009)
  • Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)