Brower Piven

A Professional Corporation

Brower Piven is a leader in the fight against securities fraud, aggressively pursuing securities fraud cases on behalf of investors who have been injured by corporate fraud and financial wrongdoing. Courts around the country, co-counsel and opposing counsel have repeatedly recognized Brower Piven’s reputation for excellence in this field and its role as a leading advocate for shareholders and investors.


Additional examples of current and past matters in which the attorneys at Brower Piven had a leadership role demonstrate the scope of the firm’s expertise include:


In re Merck & Co., Inc.  Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litig., 3:05-CV-02367 (MDL 1658) (D.N.J.).  Beginning in 2003, a group of investors filed suit against Merck & Co. accusing the company of defrauding investors and misleading investors concerning the serious safety issues relating to Vioxx.  Brower Piven is one of the lead counsel in the action.  The district court dismissed the entire lawsuit, finding, among other things, that the plaintiffs had failed to file their lawsuit within the required time period.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that dismissal (543 F.3d 150), and, on a writ of certiorari (556 U.S. 1257), the United States Supreme Court unanimously found that the plaintiffs had timely filed their lawsuit (559 U.S. 633).  The case was remanded and in 2016 settled for $1.062 billion.

In re Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Sec. Litig., 09-md-02063-JLK-KMT (D. Colo.).  Shareholders in seven different Oppenheimer municipal bond funds brought suit alleging that these funds misrepresented or failed to disclose the nature and degree of the risks associated with the extremely risky investment strategies relying on low quality, unrated, and/or illiquid bonds, or on highly-leveraged derivative instruments known as “inverse floaters.”  Brower Piven worked aggressively with co-counsel to obtain a $89.5 million cash settlement for investors.


Steiner v. Southmark Corp., 3-89-1387-D (N.D. Tex.).  A federal securities fraud class action against defunct real estate partnership marketer and its outside accountants resulting in a recovery of over $75 million in cash for investors.


In re Petro-Lewis Sec. Litig., 84-C-326 (D. Colo.).  A federal securities fraud class action on behalf of limited partners and shareholders where plaintiffs recovered over $100 million in cash and benefits including the restructuring of dozens of oil and gas limited partnerships.


In re MicroStrategy Sec. Litig., 00-473-A (E.D. Va.).  A federal securities fraud class, where over $125 million was recovered for investors, the Court commented that: “Clearly, the conduct of all counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties confirms that they deserve the national recognition that they enjoy.”


In re Arakis Energy Corp. Sec. Litig., 95-CV-3431 (ARR) (E.D.N.Y.).  A federal securities class action against Canadian company resulting in a recovery of over $24 million for investors.


In re Spectrum Information Technologies Sec. Litig., CV-93-2295 (FB) (E.D.N.Y.).  A securities fraud action against bankrupt issuer where over $10 million in cash was recovered (including all insurance coverage available) for investors following successful trial and appeal against directors’ and officers’ insurance carrier who attempted to disclaim coverage.


In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Sec. Litig., 92-CIV-4007 (JES) (S.D.N.Y.).  A federal securities class action resulting in recovery of over $19 million in cash for investors.

Steiner v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., 86-M-456 (D. Colo.).  A federal securities class action against the former Fortune 500 cement manufacturer resulting in an over $17.5 million recovery in cash for investors.


In re Broadwing Sec. Litig., C-1-02-795 (S.D. Ohio).  A federal securities class action against major public utility/broadband company resulting in a recovery of over $35 million in cash for investors.


Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 00-20875 (S.D. Tex.).  A federal securities class action where, after a successful appeal of a question of first impression in the federal appellate courts relating to the selection of lead plaintiffs and class certification in the Fifth Circuit under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, over $29 million was recovered for investors.


In re Bausch & Lomb Sec. Litig., 01-CV-6190 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.).  A federal securities class action resulting in a recovery of over $12.5 million for investors.


Slone v. Fifth Third Bancorp, 1-:03-CV-211 (S.D. Ohio).  A securities fraud action against one of the largest mid-west bank holding companies, resulting in a recovery of $17 million for investors.


Poziak v. Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC, 1:03cv2457(NRB) (S.D.N.Y.). A securities fraud action against one of the largest public corporations in the U.K., resulting in a recovery of approximately 90% of recoverable damages in cash for investors.


Other Representations:

  • In re Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 3:14-cv-00175 (D. Nev.)
  • In re Arotech, Inc. Securities Litig., 07-cv-1838 (RJD) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y.)
  • Beauregard v. Smart Online, Inc., 07-CV-00785-WO-PTS (M.D.N.C.)
  • DeAngelis v. Corzine (MF Global Sec. Litig.), 11-cv-7866 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Espinoza v. Whiting (Patriot Coal Sec. Litig.), 4:12-cv-1711 (E.D. Mo.)
  • In re Fusion-io, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 5:13-cv-05368 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Gomez v., Inc., CV09-03216 CMB-Ex (C.D. Cal.)
  • Gordon v. Sonar Capital Management LLC, 11 Civ. 9665 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Gosselin v. First Trust Advisors, L.P., 08-cv-05213 (N.D. Ill.)
  • Guevoura Fund Ltd. v. Sillerman (SFX Enter’t Sec. Litig.), 15-cv-07192 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • In re Hemispherx BioPharma, Inc. Litig., 09-05262 (E.D. Pa.)
  • In re Immersion Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 3:09-cv-04073-MMC (N.D. Cal.)
  • In re Interlink Electronics, Inc. Sec. Litig., CV05-8133 AG (SHx)
  • In re K-V Pharmaceuticals Co. Sec. Litig., 4:11-cv-1816 (E.D. Mo.)
  • Kaplan v. Gaming Partners International, Inc., 2:07-cv-00849 (D. Nev.)
  • Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., No. 4:10-cv-04957 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Maguire Financial, LP v. Powersecure International, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00092 (E.D.N.C.)
  • In re Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC Sec. & Deriv. Litig., 08-MD-1961 (D. Md)
  • In re OCZ Technology Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., 3:12-cv-5265 (N.D. Cal.)
  • In re Opteum, Inc. Sec. Litig., 07-14278-CIV-GRAHAM (S.D. Fla.)
  • The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Inyx, Inc., 08-cv-06857-PKC (S.D.N.Y.)
  • In re Research In Motion Limited Sec. Litig., No. 11 Civ. 4068 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Sapir v. Nymox Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 2:14-cv-07331 (D.N.J.)
  • Shah v. GenVec, Inc., 8:12-cv-00341-DKC (D. Md.)
  • In re Spectranetics Corporation Sec. Litig., 08-cv-02048-REB-KLM (D. Colo.)
  • In re HomeBanc Corp. Sec. Litig., 1:08-cv-1461 (N.D. Ga.)
  • Klugman v. American Capital Ltd., 8:09-CV-00005-PJM (D. Md.)
  • Zhamukhanov v. AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-04416 (S.D.N.Y.)