Mr. Rawlinson has extensive experience litigating class action lawsuits of all kinds, with a focus on claims of securities fraud. His representative clients in these types of matters have included Apple, AMD, sTec, Inc., Manouch Moshayedi, Broadcom, Nevro, PolarityTE, Relypsa, Gold Resource Corp., and United Western Bankcorp. Representative matters include:
- Levy v. Guitierrez: Currently represents Apple in a securities fraud case in the United States District Court for New Hampshire.
- Oklahoma Pension v. Nevro: Currently represents the medical device maker against claims of securities fraud.
- In re: PolarityTE Securities Litigation: Currently represents the medical technology company against claims of securities fraud.
- Restoration Robotics Securities Litigation: Currently represents Restoration Robotics and its directors and officers in a series of securities lawsuits in state and federal court.
- Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.: Currently represents Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), a global semiconductor company, and certain of its current and former directors and officers in a securities class action and related derivative action filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege that AMD made materially false and misleading statements regarding demand for its Llano APUs and other products.
- SEC v. Moshayedi: Represented the former Chairman and CEO of sTec, Inc., Manouch Moshayedi, in one of the largest insider trading actions brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC had alleged that Mr. Moshayedi engaged in insider trading and made false or misleading statements in connection with a secondary offering of approximately US$267 million worth of sTec stock owned by Mr. Moshayedi and his family. Following a three-week trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. The Daily Journal recognized the win as the Top Defense Verdict of 2014.
- In re STEC, Inc. Securities Litigation: Represented company and officers in private shareholder litigation, including Section 11,
10(b)(5), and control person claims, involving claims in excess of US$500 million in claimed damages.
- Mathew v. Brocade: Represented Broadcom in shareholder claims, including control person claims, brought by Brocade shareholders.
- In re: Pure Storage Litigation: Represented individual and private investor defendants against federal securities claims brought by shareholders.
- In re Gold Resource Corporation Securities Litigation: Represented Gold Resource Corporation, a Colorado-based mining company, and certain individual defendants in a securities class action in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act. The court granted Latham's motion to dismiss with prejudice and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Latham also represents the company in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by the City of Bristol Pension Fund alleging breach of fiduciary duty.
- MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. United Western Bancorp, Inc.: Represented United Western Bancorp, a Colorado-based bank holding company, and certain of its officers and directors in a securities class action in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act following the company's announcement of impairments in its MBS and CMO investments and the FDIC's subsequent appointment as the bank's receiver. Latham secured a dismissal of the matter, which was later affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- In re Oracle Corporation Securities Litigation: Secured summary judgment on behalf of Oracle Corporation and three of its executive officers in a US$3 billion securities fraud class action arising from a missed earnings forecast in 2001, which was preceded by insider stock sales of more than US$900 million.
- Successfully defended a national accounting firm against claims of professional malpractice, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation in a US$300 million lawsuit. Following a three-week hearing, the three-arbitrator panel rendered a complete defense verdict.
Mr. Rawlinson has extensive experience litigating technology cases of all kinds, including cases involving complex commercial and contract claims, trade secrets claims, and patent claims. Representative clients include Arista Networks, Marvell Semiconductor, Intermolecular, Benchmark Capital, and Envia Systems. Representative matters include:
- Optumsoft Inc. v. Arista Networks Inc.: Achieved a complete defense victory for Arista Networks, a software-driven cloud networking company, in highly-publicized 2015 bench trial against OptumSoft regarding a disputed licensing agreement between the two companies. After a two and a half week bench trial, Judge Kirwan rejected OptumSoft’s interpretation of the parties’ license agreement, adopted Arista’s theory of the case wholesale, and declared Arista to be the owner of all of the disputed files. Phase 2 of the case concerning allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and any additional disputed files is currently underway.
- Jasmine v. Marvell: Won a total defense verdict following a six-week jury trial for Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. in the infamous “voicemail” trade secret case brought by Jasmine Networks. The Daily Journal recognized the win as the Top Defense Verdict of 2010.
- Represented a Taiwanese-based semiconductor product manufacturer as respondent in an ICDR arbitration, brought by a US-based company venued in San Francisco, applying California law. The claims involved breach of contract, intellectual property ownership, fraud, and antitrust conspiracy claims. Following a two-week trial, Latham successfully settled the matter on behalf of the
manufacturer on very favorable terms.
- Successfully defended a biotechnology company in a confidential arbitration relating to control over development of next-generation therapies, and the rights to a profit stream estimated to exceed US$2 billion. After a three-week hearing, the panel rejected the collaborator's damages claims in their entirety, and also rejected the collaborator's efforts to derail development efforts.