Peter A. Wald

Peter A. Wald is the Chair of Latham’s Global Litigation Department. He has extensive trial and appellate experience in complex commercial cases, including securities and professional liability, antitrust and unfair competition, civil RICO, patent, copyright and trade secrets matters.

Mr. Wald has been recognized by the Daily Journal as one of "California's Top 100 Leading Lawyers" and by Lawdragon's as one of the "100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation."  He is a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, and is listed as a leading California securities litigation attorney in Chambers and Partners USA – America's Leading Business Lawyers, the Legal 500 US guide and the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America Guide.  Mr. Wald has also been recognized as a "Litigation Star" in the Euromoney Institutional Investor Benchmark: Litigation 2009 guide, which noted his "extensive trial and appellate practice.”

Practice Highlights

Summary Judgment

• Secured summary judgment on behalf of Oracle Corporation and three of its executive officers in a $3 billion securities fraud class action arising from a missed earnings forecast in 2001.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's projected financial results, and that certain Oracle executives sold stock while in possession of material, nonpublic information.  In re Oracle Corporation Securities Litigation, 2009 WL 1709050 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2009). 
• Secured summary judgment in favor of Omnicom Group, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in a $3 billion securities fraud class action lawsuit challenging the accounting for investments in certain interactive advertising companies.  Argued and won the Second Circuit appeal of this matter.  In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2010).
• Secured summary judgment on behalf of Ernst & Young LLP in a $2 billion securities fraud class action lawsuit challenging the accounting for certain telecommunications assets.  In re Williams Securities Litigation, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Okla. 2007).

Trials

• Successfully defended a national accounting firm against claims of professional malpractice and breach of contract in a $500 million lawsuit. Plaintiff, the trustee of a bankrupt financial institution, alleged that the defendant had failed to conduct a proper year-end audit and quarterly reviews, causing regulatory action that triggered the company’s collapse. Following an eight-day hearing, the three-arbitrator panel rendered a complete defense verdict, finding that defendant’s conduct had not caused any harm, and that no measure of “lost value” had been proven (2008).
• Successfully defended a national accounting firm against claims of malpractice and breach of contract in a $300 million lawsuit. Plaintiff, the trustee of a bankrupt telecommunications company, alleged that defendant had failed to conduct an audit and interim reviews in accordance with professional standards, and failed to uncover a cash recycling scheme that resulted in a significant financial statement restatement. Following a two-week arbitration hearing and testimony from 10 witnesses, the three-arbitrator panel rendered a complete defense award (2007).
• Successfully defended a national accounting firm against claims of malpractice and breach of contract. Plaintiff, the trustee of a bankrupt technology company in the telecommunications sector, alleged that defendant had failed to conduct an audit and interim review in accordance with professional standards, and failed properly to scrutinize accounting judgments that later were restated. The trustee sought $75 million in damages.  Following a three-week arbitration and testimony from more than 15 witnesses, the three-arbitrator panel rendered a complete defense award (2006).
• Successfully defended a national professional services firm against claims of malpractice and breach of contract.  Plaintiff, the post-bankruptcy successor to a large provider of Internet data centers, alleged that it had been overcharged $30 million in connection with the construction of certain facilities, and that the defendant should have prevented such overcharges from occurring. Following a three-week arbitration and testimony from more than 17 witnesses, the three-arbitrator panel rendered a complete defense award (2006).
• Successfully defended Ernst & Young LLP in a securities fraud class action lawsuit involving Clarent Corporation, a company specializing in computer-based telephony systems. Following a three-week federal court trial during which the plaintiff class sought damages of $125 million, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ernst & Young on all claims. In re Clarent Corp. Securities Litigation, C-01-3361 CRB (2005).
• Successfully represented a national grocery chain in a five-week arbitration with a warehouse logistics operator over claims to reimbursement for certain incurred costs, which matter was favorably resolved in the course of the arbitration (2002).
• Successfully defended a professional services firm against claims of malpractice and breach of contract arising from the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software platform. The case involved alleged damages of more than $300 million. Following a three-week arbitration, a three-arbitrator panel found for the defendant on all claims, and awarded the defendant its unpaid fees for consulting services rendered (2001).
• Successfully defended a national accounting firm against claims of fraud, malpractice, and breach of contract.  Plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to conduct a proper going concern analysis, miscalculated actuarial reserves, failed to identify deficiencies in internal controls, and violated auditor independence rules, causing $200 million in damages.  Following a two-week arbitration, the three-arbitrator panel rendered a complete defense award (2001).
• Secured an $18.5 million federal court jury verdict (including $9 million in punitive damages) plus $6 million in attorneys’ fees on behalf of Tyco Electronics against a former electronics distributor for theft of trade secrets and interference with contract, and successfully defended against the distributor’s antitrust damages claim (Walker Process monopolization) of more than $1 billion (2000). Bourns, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 331 F.3d 704 (9^th Cir. 2003).
• Successfully defended Atari Games Corporation against trademark infringement claims, and secured an important ruling from the Federal Circuit that the copying and disassembly of copyrighted computer code, for purposes of reverse engineering, can constitute a non-infringing fair use. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo, 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
• Successfully defended Price Waterhouse against professional malpractice and breach of contract claims brought by its audit client, the City of San Jose. Following a seven-month trial during which the plaintiff sought $54 million in damages, the jury returned a verdict against Price Waterhouse for $517,000.  On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the award was reduced to $72,000 (1990). City of San Jose v. Price Waterhouse, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6801 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 1993).
• Successfully defended Sperry Corporation in a $50 million breach of contract and theft of trade secrets case. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on all claims. Dicom v. Sperry Corporation, Case No. C-82-3582 (RHS) (N.D. Cal. 1985).

Motion Practice

• Secured dismissal of securities fraud claims against Ernst & Young stemming from the Refco fraud.  Kirschner v. Bennett, et al., 648 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009).
• Secured dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited, a Channel Islands client, and three individual employees. Plaintiff, a former trust customer, claimed that defendants had disclosed his personal confidential financial information and orchestrated a conspiracy to force the unfavorable settlement of an earlier case.  The damages sought exceeded $150 million. Hilsenrath v. Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited et al., 2008 WL 728902 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2008).
• Secured dismissal of professional malpractice and breach of contract claims against Ernst & Young LLP in the JDS Uniphase Corporation shareholder derivative suit.  Plaintiffs claimed that EY, the Company’s outside auditor, failed to conduct proper year-end audits and quarterly reviews, which allegedly contributed to large goodwill write-downs in early 2001.  After securing a stay of the state court proceedings in favor of parallel federal actions, the Court granted EY’s demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint for failure adequately to plead demand futility. In Re JDS Uniphase Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. CV 806911 (Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Aug. 15, 2008).
• Successfully defended the CEO and Directors of Power Integrations, Inc. in federal and state court derivative lawsuits alleging stock option backdating.  Secured an early, global settlement of all cases, which did not require cash contributions from the individual defendants (other than the repayment by one client of the modest profit realized from an exercised option grant that was later determined to have been priced incorrectly).  In re Power Integrations, Inc., Deriv. Litigation, Case No. 1-06-CV-064517 (Santa Clara Superior Court), Quaco v. Balakrishnan, Case No. C-06-2811 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
• Successfully defended Deloitte & Touche LLP against claims of malpractice and breach of contract in both the US and Irish courts.  Plaintiff, an international reinsurance company, alleged that it had been misadvised with respect to foreign currency translation accounts, internal controls, auditor independence rules, NASDAQ listing requirements, and various reinsurance industry issues.  Damages claimed were in excess of $60 million. Proceedings originally filed in the US were dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, ESG Re Limited vs. Deloitte & Touche LLP et al., CGC-03-424344 (2004), and the case was favorably resolved after commencing trial in Ireland (2007).
• Secured dismissal by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department) on demand futility grounds of a derivative lawsuit against the directors of Omnicom Group, Inc. The appeals court overturned a decision by the trial court and clarified the requirements for plaintiffs seeking to bring derivative claims without first making a demand on the board of directors. In re Omnicom Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 43 A.D. 3d 766, 842 N.Y.S. 2d 408 (N.Y. 1^st Dep’t 2007).
• Successfully defended Andersen and former Andersen partners and employees in various civil and regulatory proceedings arising out of Enron Corporation’s collapse. Newby v. Enron Corp. and Consolidated Cases, H-01-3624 (S.D. Tex. 2002-06).
• Secured a preliminary injunction on behalf of Qwest Communications under Section 253 of the Federal Telecommunications Act, enjoining the City of Berkeley from enforcing a local ordinance that would have prevented Qwest from laying fiber optic cable in the public rights-of-way. Qwest v. City of Berkeley, 146 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 
• Successfully defended The London Pacific Group in litigation arising from the Group’s management of a high-yield investment portfolio, securing dismissal of plaintiff’s federal and state court complaints (including civil RICO claims) and recovering attorneys’ fees on behalf of the Group in both proceedings.  Govett American Endeavor Fund Ltd. v. Trueger, 112 F.3d 1017 (9^th Cir. 1997), opinion withdrawn and appeal dismissed (May 29, 1998); Govett American Endeavor Fund Ltd., Case No. 95-0460 FMS (N.D. Cal.); Govett & Co. v. Holland, Case No. 968069 (San Francisco Superior).
• Secured an important ruling that carriers are not entitled to allocate settlement and defense costs between insured directors and officers and the uninsured corporation, absent a showing that the settlement was “made larger” by virtue of the corporation’s separate liability. Raychem v. Federal, 853 F. Supp. 1170 (N.D. Cal. 1994).

Current Engagements

• Represents Ernst & Young LLP in securities litigation stemming from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.  In re Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation, 1:09-MD-02017 LAK (S.D.N.Y.).
• Represents Deloitte & Touche LLP in securities litigation stemming from the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual.  In re Washington Mutual Securities Litigation, 08-MDL-0919MJP (W.D. Wash.).
• Represents Ernst & Young LLP in securities litigation stemming from the bankruptcy of IndyMac Bank.  Daniels v. Perry, et al., Case No. CV 08-03812 GW (C.D. Cal.).
• Represents SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae) and certain of its officers in a securities class action alleging claims under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Burch v. SLM Corp., 08-CV-01029 (WHP).
• Represents Fortis Bank (Cayman Ltd.) and Fortis Prime Fund Solutions (Cayman) in claims arising out of the Bernard Madoff fraud. In re J. Ezra Merkin and BDO Seidman Securities Litigation, Case No. 08 CIV 10922 DAB (S.D.N.Y.).
• Represents Celera Corporation and certain officers in a securities class action alleging claims under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System v. Celera Corporation, et al., No. 5:10-cv-02604-JW (N.D. Cal.).
• Represents Redwood Trust in securities litigation brought by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley, et al., Case No. 10-CV-00132 RSM (W.D. Wash.).Represents The9, Xiaowei Chen, George Lai, Hannah Lee, Tony Tse and Jun Zhu in a securities class action alleging claims under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Glaser, et al. v. The 9, Ltd., et al., Case No. 09-CV-08904 RJH (S.D.N.Y.).
• Represents BDO-McCabe Lo Ltd. in a securities class action alleging claims under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Munoz, et al. v. China Expert Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-10531 AKH (S.D.N.Y.).
• Represents Ernst & Young LLP in a securities class action alleging claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, involving alleged stock options backdating. In re Juniper Networks Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-04327 JW (N.D. Cal.).
• Represents Ernst & Young LLP in a derivative lawsuit involving alleged stock options backdating. In re Blue Coat Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1-05-CV-041436 (Santa Clara Superior Court).
• Represents Ernst & Young LLP in derivative litigation involving the acquisition of Siliconix by its majority shareholder Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. Rebecca Proctor, et al. v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-018977 (Santa Clara Superior Court).

Appellate Record

• ALCOA v. Central Lincoln Peoples’ Utility District, 467 U.S. 380 (1984)(on the briefs).
• In re Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2010)(argued).
• Rebecca Proctor, et al. v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., et al., 584 F.3d 1208 (9^th Cir. 2009)(on the briefs).
• Newby v. Enron (Andersen v. Texas State Board of Public Accountancy), 443 F.3d 416 (5^th Cir. 2006)(argued).
• Bourns, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 331 F.3d 704 (9^th Cir. 2003)(argued).
• Pate v. Berkeley (USA) Holding, Ltd., 69 Fed. Appx. 875 (9^th Cir. 2003)(on the briefs).
• Govett American Endeavor Fund Ltd. v. Trueger, 112 F.3d 1017 (9^th Cir. 1997)(argued)(opinion subsequently with­drawn).
• City of San Jose v. Price Waterhouse, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6801 (9th Cir. 1993)(argued).
• Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Asarco, Inc., 5 F.3d 431 (9^th Cir. 1993)(argued).
• Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo, 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(on the briefs).
• Bristow v. WCI, 905 F.2d 1540 (9^th Cir. 1990)(argued).
• In re Omnicom Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 2007 WL 2768993 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), 2007 N.Y. Slip. Op. 06933(argued).
• Uecker & Associates, Inc. v. Ernst & Young LLP, Cal. App. 1^st, No. A109719 (2005)(unpublished)(argued).

Judicial Clerkship

Mr. Wald served as law clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, 1977-78.

San Francisco Office