The Rosen Law Firm

Securities Litigation: Plaintiff

Partner

Jon has practiced securities litigation since 2011. He has served as lead counsel (i.e., with primary responsibility for either the overall litigation or its day-to-day development) in more than 25 successful securities class action lawsuits, which have collectively recovered more than $165 million.

Jon was a lead counsel in a case alleging that a Canadian company fraudulently concealed a potential tax liability. The defendants argued that the investors could not recover for the lost value of their shares when the tax assessment was announced because the company managed eventually to settle the tax liability on favorable terms. But Jon and the litigation team secured a $41.5 million settlement (more than what the company paid to settle the tax liability) by showing that investors could still recover for their losses because the company failed to disclose a risk, whatever the ultimate outcome of the tax appeal. Jon was opposed by pre-eminent counsel who hired a former Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court to provide expert opinions on Canadian law.

By litigating aggressively and recognizing settlement dynamics, Jon also secured a $2.35 million recovery in less than a year of litigation against a foreign company whose securities primarily traded on a foreign market. The recovery was notable not just because of its speed but also because it was a very large percentage of total damages. Investors who filed claims ultimately recovered more from the settlement, after attorneys’ fees, than they lost from the alleged fraud.

Jon is currently one of the lead attorneys in a case alleging that a private spaceflight company concealed defects in vehicles prior to its IPO. The complaint he drafted drew significant media attention.

Jon’s cases or briefing have set precedents expanding the universe of documents plaintiffs can use to draft securities class action complaints (Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., 761 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2014), finding that corporate executives and others who secretly directed the making of statements by others may be liable for the others’ statements (In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Or. 2015), Puddu v. 6D Global Technologies, Inc., 2021 WL 1198566 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)), and providing that when a plaintiff seeks class certification in an action primarily alleging omissions, the defendant may not rebut a presumption of reliance that is necessary for class treatment by showing that the stock price did not immediately fall after the corrective disclosure (Puddu v. NYGG (Asia) Ltd., 2022 WL 2304248 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)).

Jon graduated from the New York University School of Law and has been recognized as a SuperLawyers – Rising Star since 2015. He is proficient in French.

French And English

New York University School of Law, J.D., 2009, Lederman/Milbank Law, Economics and Business Fellowship

University of Toronto, B.A. in Economics & Philosophy