Joseph Serino, Jr.

Mr. Serino’s experience includes representing: 

Securities Litigation

• A broker-dealer, investment bank, and FDIC-bank in a federal court class action by more than 1.3 million customers challenging the use of negative consent to sweep uninvested cash and seeking damages in excess of US$1 billion. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.* 
• A broker-dealer and investment company in a case by a state securities regulator seeking more than US$10 billion in rescission damages for the sale of mutual funds, more than US$30 million in fines, and to revoke the companies’ license to do business. After a five-week trial, presided over by a hearing officer appointed by the state securities regulator, all claims were dismissed with prejudice.*    
• A broker-dealer in a case by a state securities regulator seeking to revoke the broker-dealer’s license to do business plus various money damages. After a week-long trial, which was prosecuted by a deputy attorney general and presided over by another deputy attorney general, all claims were dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on appeal.* 
• A broker-dealer in a case by a state securities regulator seeking to revoke the broker-dealer’s license to do business plus various money damages. After a week-long trial, which was prosecuted by a deputy attorney general and presided over by another deputy attorney general, all claims were dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on appeal.* 
• A hedge fund in a federal court action by an international investment bank seeking damages in excess of US$200 million based on the alleged manipulation of the collateral selected for a synthetic CDO. The case was dismissed with prejudice.* 
• An investment company and its directors in a series of federal court class actions challenging the design and distribution of the company’s mutual funds. All claims were dismissed with prejudice and affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.* 
• A NASDAQ healthcare company seeking more than US$250 million in damages following a 19% drop in the company’s stock price after allegedly corrective disclosures. More than US$200 million of the damages were dismissed, and the case settled at mediation shortly thereafter.*

Antitrust Litigation

• An FX dealer in several federal court class actions against 16 dealers accused of engaging in an illegal restraint of trade in the US$5.3 trillion per day Forex market. Three of the class actions were dismissed on motion practice. One was voluntarily discontinued after pre-motion conference. And one was favorably settled after mediation on a class-wide basis without any admission of liability. 
• A foreign platinum and palladium “fixing member” and its domestic sister-subsidiary in a federal court class action alleging restraint of trade in the platinum and palladium markets. All claims against the foreign entity were dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds, while the claims against the domestic entity were dismissed for failure to state a claim.* 
• A generic pharmaceutical company in a reverse payment class action case brought under the Sherman Act. The federal court dismissed all claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim.* 

Commercial Litigation

• A venture capital portfolio company as plaintiff in a post-merger earn out dispute against a medical device company owned by an NYSE company. After a two-week state court jury trial, plaintiff was awarded more than US$250 million, including US$175 million in contract damages.* 
• A venture capital portfolio company as plaintiff in a trade secrets case against an NYSE retailer. After a one-week federal court jury trial, plaintiff was awarded more than US$33 million in damages and fees for willful infringement.* 
• An internet services provider in a federal court class action by 680,000 customers seeking damages of up to US$20 billion for alleged data privacy violations under ECPA. All claims were dismissed through post-discovery motion practice.* 
• A telecommunications company in a state court class action by more than 30,000 property owners claiming inverse condemnation and seeking damages in excess of US$300 million. After discovery, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied, and that ruling was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals.* 
• A generic drug manufacturer in a federal court class action by 2.1 million class members seeking US$11 billion in damages for allegedly false labeling. While motions for summary judgment and class certification were pending, the case settled on a class-wide basis for non-cash compensation.*
• A NASDAQ healthcare company in a Delaware Chancery Court derivative action alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty. The Chancery Court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs used the wrong board to evaluate demand futility and failed to show that a majority of the correct board was not disinterested.* 

Bankruptcy Litigation 

• A foreign investment company in (a) prosecuting its SIPA claim against the Madoff estate, (b) defending a US$600 million fraudulent conveyance claim by the Madoff Trustee, and (c) defending a US$2 billion federal court class action by the company’s shareholders for the fund’s Madoff-related investments. The SIPA and fraudulent conveyance actions settled, with the foreign investment company receiving an approved claim against the Madoff estate for US$1.6 billion and a general release as to the US$600 million fraudulent conveyance claim. The US$2 billion securities class action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds and affirmed by the Second Circuit.* 
• A chapter 11 debtor in a bench trial to confirm the POR over the valuation objections of the debtor’s noteholders. The court confirmed debtor’s multi-billion dollar plan of reorganization.* 
• A chapter 11 debtor in an action seeking to drag a minority investor into a US$12 billion sales transaction to consummate a POR. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment for debtor.* 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

• A managing member of a private equity sponsor who was sued by its co-managing member for the alleged breach of the parties’ JV agreement. The arbitrator denied the claims of the co-managing member, granted the counterclaims of the client and stripping all rights and interests of the co-managing member, and ordered the co-managing member to pay 100% of the client’s attorneys’ fees and arbitration costs.*     
• An investment bank in action by an executive challenging the dissolution of the bank’s joint venture and seeking derivative damages in excess of US$1 billion. After a nine-day arbitration all claims were dismissed with prejudice.
• A medical device company as claimant in an action asserting that certain post-merger milestones were missed because of the buyer’s breach of the merger agreement. After a seven-day arbitration, the panel awarded the claimant nearly US$60 million in milestone payments. 
• Numerous broker-dealers, investment banks, and their employees in securities industry arbitrations. 

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham