Kevin H. Metz

Kevin Metz is a partner in Latham & Watkins’ Washington D.C. office and a member of its Securities Litigation and White Collar and Government Investigations practice groups.  He concentrates his practice on complex corporate governance litigation, internal investigations and accountant defense. He has represented clients in state and federal court and before the SEC, DOJ and other regulatory bodies, in cases involving insider trading, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, accounting fraud and other securities-related issues. He has conducted numerous management and audit committee investigations concerning accounting fraud, FCPA violations, and insider trading. He also has defended public company auditors in civil and SEC litigation, including the rare, successful defense of an auditor in a trial on charges brought by the SEC Division of Enforcement under SEC Rule 102(e).

Mr. Metz joined Latham & Watkins in 2000 following a judicial clerkship for the Hon. Michael S. Kanne on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Prior to law school, he spent several years as a newspaper reporter for The Tampa Tribune, where he wrote about state politics and the governor's office.  In 2004, while on leave from Latham, Mr. Metz served as a deputy finance director for Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign.
 
Representative Experience

• In 2009, won dismissal of all charges brought by the SEC Division of Enforcement in a Rule 102(e) proceeding on behalf of a partner of a Big Four accounting firm. After a two-week trial in 2007 involving a dozen fact and expert witnesses and more than 400 exhibits, the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the defense and cleared the accountant of all charges.  Following an appeal by the Division of Enforcement, the full Commission confirmed the law judge’s ruling and dismissed the case. 
• In 2009, won dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action in the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a Big Four accounting firm. The plaintiffs alleged that the company, a St. Petersburg-based technology company, and its auditors made false or misleading statements regarding the company’s accounting for stock options from 2000 through 2006. The court found that plaintiffs failed to allege the accounting firm’s scienter with the specificity required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) and had waited beyond the statutory limit to file the suit.
• In 2009, obtained dismissal in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a Big Four accounting firm of complaints brought by trustees of a bankrupt commodities and securities broker. The trustees alleged that the accounting firm had aided and abetted a multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by certain company insiders. The court dismissed two cases with prejudice and referred a third to arbitration. 
• In 2009, obtained a favorable settlement of an SEC investigation for a senior accountant at a global internet data security firm. The SEC alleged that the company and certain executives had falsely inflated the company’s adjusted net income. The SEC agreed to a settlement that did not allege that the accountant knowingly made or directed false accounting entries.
• In 2008, successfully represented a partner of a Big Four accounting firm during an investigation by the SEC into allegations that the accountant failed to report, as required by Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act, suspicions that the company was manipulating its accounting for income from credit card derivatives. After the accountant testified to the SEC and presented a detailed Wells submission, the SEC closed the matter without taking any action against the accountant.
• In 2007, successfully represented a Fortune 100 company in a shareholder derivative action filed in federal court in Delaware challenging the company’s shareholder approved executive compensation system. Following a motion to dismiss on behalf of the company, the plaintiffs dropped their challenge to the compensation system.
• In 2007, conducted an internal investigation for a South Florida company related to allegations of insider trading and subsequently represented the company during the SEC’s own investigation. Following a two-year investigation, the SEC filed charges against several outside parties but took no action against the company.
• In 2007, represented a leading online provider of educational content, along with its CEO and CFO, in an SEC investigation concerning allegations that a senior executive had manipulated financial results over a several-year period. Following a lengthy investigation, the SEC closed the matter without taking action against the company, the CEO or the CFO.
• In 2006, conducted an internal investigation for a Houston oil and gas pipeline construction company into allegations of FCPA violations involving the company’s operations in South America and Africa. Successfully defended the company and its senior officers during SEC and DOJ investigations, obtaining favorable settlements for the company with no action taken against the officers. Also obtained a favorable settlement of a securities class action against the company, its CEO and CFO in the Southern District of Texas.
• In 2006, successfully represented a high-ranking executive of a major clothes retailer during an insider-trading investigation by the SEC and a subsequent securities class action in the Southern District of Ohio. The SEC closed the investigation with no action taken, and plaintiffs ultimately declined to name the executive in the securities class action.
• In 2006, won dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of board members of an environmental remediation company.
• In 2003, obtained dismissal of most counts and a favorable settlement of the remaining counts in a securities class action filed in the Northern District of California against a leading independent DSL provider. Relying entirely on confidential witnesses, the plaintiffs alleged that certain executives of the DSL provider overstated the number of customers and amount of revenues prior to a merger with a major telecommunications company. In dismissing the most serious fraud charges, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the PSLRA’s stringent pleading requirements for alleging securities fraud.   
  

Washington, D.C. Office