About Us

Rooted in History, Leading Securities Litigation Forward
Since its founding by trailblazing attorney Abe Pomerantz in 1936, Pomerantz has shaped the law, negotiating record-setting recoveries for defrauded investors and achieving precedent-setting decisions that have initiated historic corporate governance reforms and expanded shareholder rights. Today, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, Pomerantz protects and vindicates investors wherever they are situated.

Pomerantz’s victories include billions of dollars recovered for defrauded investors, including a $3 billion settlement for the class in a securities class action against Brazil’s oil giant, Petrobras (In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)), which is the largest settlement ever attained in a securities class action involving a foreign issuer, the fifth-largest securities class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the largest securities class action settlement achieved by a foreign Lead Plaintiff, and the largest securities class action settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial reports.

Time and again, the firm’s attorneys have pioneered innovative legal theories to address the evolving legal, social, and corporate landscape. Pomerantz has been and remains at the vanguard of litigation in cases that relate to cybersecurity, SPACs, ESG issues, #MeToo, digital currency, and global rights post-Morrison.
Led by Managing Partner Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz upholds the excellence and integrity established by our founder. With a focus on the future, attention to the present, and respect for the past, Pomerantz continues to protect and expand shareholder rights through securities litigation and the pursuit of corporate governance reform.

Settlements on behalf of investors:
Among the firm’s other significant financial settlements for investors are:

•  $225 million in In re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825 (E.D.N.Y.) (2007)
  • the second-largest recovery to date at the time involving the backdating of options
• $146.25 million In re Charter Commc’ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-cv-1186 (E.D. Mo. 2005)
  •  Charter also agreed to enact substantive improvements in corporate governance
•  $135 million in Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., No. 12-cv-9350 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
  o allegations were that investors lost money because of insider trading in the company’s shares
•  $110 million in Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al. (2018)
  •  the case arose from Fiat’s emissions scandal
•  $97 million in Roofer’s Pension Fund v. Papa, et al., No. 16-2805 (D.N.J.) (“Perrigo”) (2025)
  •  resulted in the first certification of a foreign purchaser by a federal court since Morrison
• $90 million settlement in Klein, et al. v. Altria Group, et al., No. 3:20-cv-00075 (E.D. Va.)
  • one of the largest recoveries ever achieved in a securities class action in Virginia and the Fourth Circuit
•  $80 million in In re Grab Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 1:22-CV-02189 (2025)
  •  the second-largest settlement to date in a SPAC securities litigation
•  $80 million in In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 5:17-cv-00373 (N.D. Cal.)
  •  the first significant settlement of a securities class action related to a data breach
•  $75 million in In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05-cv-2860 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
  •  the case alleged accounting manipulations
• $74 million in Howard v. Arconic et al., No. 2:17-cv-01057 (W.D. Pa.)
  •  claims related to Arconic’s misstatements about the safety of its insulation panels that were implicated in the devastating fire in the Grenfell Tower block of flats in London
•  $70 million in Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-cv-479 (D. Nev.)
  o one of the largest, if not the largest, recovery in a securities fraud class action arising solely from #MeToo allegations

Championing the Rights of Institutional Investors Worldwide
Pomerantz is at the vanguard of securities litigation – protecting, vindicating, and expanding the rights of investors in a global marketplace.

The United States Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), disrupted decades of legal precedent by barring use of U.S. federal securities laws to recover losses from investments in foreign-traded securities – even where a company dual-lists its stock or sells other securities in the U.S. Investors were abruptly left unprotected, with no right of recovery under U.S. law and seemingly no viable recourse in U.S. courts, whenever the exchange on which their damaged shares traded was outside the U.S. borders.

In response to the Morrison decision, Pomerantz moved to expand the now limited protection for investors by arguing novel legal theories. As a result of a Pomerantz’s hard-fought litigation it expanded investor rights post-Morrison by setting the following precedents:

1. For the first time, post-Morrison, institutional investors were permitted to pursue foreign claims seeking recovery for foreign traded securities in a U.S. court. In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig., MDL No. 10-MD-2185 (S.D. Tex.)
2. For the first time post-Morrison, a U.S. district court certified a foreign purchaser class. Roofer’s Pension Fund v. Papa, et al. No. 16-2805 (D.N.J.)
3. Pomerantz persuaded a U.S. district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Israeli law claims. In re Teva Securities Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-558 (D. Conn.); Costas, et al. v. Ormat Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-000271 (D. Nev.)

When pursuing litigation in foreign courts is the most efficient solution for clients, Pomerantz partners with local law firms and litigation funders in the appropriate jurisdiction to bring the claim, maximizing an investor’s opportunity for recovery wherever the investor or claim is situated.

With offices across the U.S. in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and with international offices situated in London, England, Paris, France, and Tel Aviv, Israel, Pomerantz is poised to expertly serve its worldwide investor clients.

Pomerantz is firmly committed to having a diverse workforce culture. Our hiring strategies are strictly merit-based, and include the brightest people from broad backgrounds who can contribute their unique experiences and perspectives. Pomerantz believes that diversity fosters excellence and innovation by creating an environment in which all voices are respected and “outside the box” ideas are heard.

Pomerantz is firmly committed to ensuring a safe and inclusive workplace for all of its employees. The Firm has extensive anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies in place, and requires its employees to complete regular trainings on these topics.

Pomerantz has earned accolades for its proven commitment to equal opportunity.  The Firm earned the number one ranking as the Best Plaintiffs’ Class Action Law Firm for Women Attorneys* in 2015. In 2016, Pomerantz was honored by Equal Rights Advocates (“ERA”) for its outstanding commitment to equal opportunity.  Partners Murielle Steven Walsh and Jennifer Pafiti were also appointed to serve on ERA’s Honorary Steering Committee.

Over its storied history, Pomerantz has won numerous landmark decisions that have enhanced shareholders’ rights and improved corporate governance. These include, but are not limited to, the following rulings:

• A short-seller’s report can constitute the loss causation element if it is plausible that it provides new information to the market that was not reflected in the stock price. Bernstein v. Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings Inc., No. 21-cv-08943, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245080, at *28 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2023);
• In re Shanda Games Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-2463 (S.D.N.Y.) alleges, under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, that the Chinese company misrepresented its valuation (among other things) when it went private in a management-led buyout. On appeal, the Second Circuit ruled:

• • As to extraterritoriality, Morrisson’s first prong, for “transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges,” applies to going-private transactions where a foreign company was listed on a U.S. exchange. In re Shanda Games Ltd. Sec. Litig., 128 F.4th 26, 43 (2d Cir. 2025);
  • As to falsity, the PSLRA safe harbor does not apply to certain going-private transactions such as that of Shanda Games. Also, “a projection is not a magic wand that immunizes all statements that relate to that projection.” Id. at 49; As to reliance, the Fraud-on-the-Market presumption applies even though the plaintiff did not trade at the market price, because he is entitled to the presumption that “he relied on the market price of his shares” when deciding whether “to permit his shares to be sold in the Merger or to dissent and exercise his appraisal rights.” Id. at 55;
  • As to loss causation, the plaintiff does not need to plead that he would have actually sought appraisal if the truth was disclosed, because that “conflates transaction and loss causation.” Whether “the Proxies induced the shareholders to forfeit their appraisal rights is a question of transaction causation.” Id. at 58;

• Scienter can be established by a defendants’ access to contradictory information, especially when the complaint specifically identifies the contradictory information. In re VNet Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 23 Civ. 11187, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180629, at *20-21 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2025);
• An SEC Investigation must be disclosed if its disclosure is necessary to make statements not misleading. Noto v. 22nd Century Grp., Inc., 35 F.4th 95, 105 (2d Cir. 2022);
• The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that defendants in securities fraud class actions bear the burden of persuasion when seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the Court in its landmark decision in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). In so holding, the Court adopted the arguments asserted by Pomerantz and twenty-seven of the foremost evidence scholars in their amicus brief;
• In rulings of first impression, investors can pursue “holder claims” under English law for losses due to retention of already-owned shares in reliance of a fraud (a theory barred under U.S. securities laws); and the U.S. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (which dismisses common law claims in deference to U.S. securities laws) does not apply to foreign law claims. Alameda Cnty. Emps.’ Ret. Ass’n v. BP p.l.c. (In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig.), No. 10-md-2185, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171459 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2013); Avalon Holdings, Inc. v. BP p.l.c. (In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig.), 109 F.Supp.3d 946 (S.D. Tex. 2014);
• Defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance on an efficient market must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Strougo v. Barclays PLC, 312 F.R.D. 307, 326-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79, 97 (2d Cir. 2017));
• Plaintiffs have no burden to show price impact at the class certification stage. Strougo v. Barclays PLC, 312 F.R.D. 307, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79, 96-97 (2d Cir. 2017);
• The ascertainability doctrine requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras (In re Petrobras Sec.), 862 F.3d 250, 264 (2d Cir. 2017);
• In an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that imputation of the CEO’s scienter to the company was warranted vis-a-vis innocent third parties, despite the fact that the executive acted for his own benefit and to the company’s detriment. In re Costa Brava P’ship III v. Chinacast Educ. Corp. (In re Chinacast Educ. Corp. Sec. Litig.), 809 F.3d 471, 478-79 (9th Cir. 2015);
• Companies cannot adopt bylaws to regulate the rights of former stockholders. Strougo v. Hollander, 111 A.3d 590, 599 (Del. Ch. 2015);
• A temporary rise in share price above its purchase price in the aftermath of a corrective disclosure does not eviscerate an investor’s claim for damages. Acticon AG v. China Ne. Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 692 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2012);
• An MBS holder may bring claims if the MBS price declines even if all payments of principal and interest have been made. Transcript of Proceedings, N.M. State Inv. Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (N.M. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 6, 2009);
• When a court selects a Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the standard for calculating the “largest financial interest” must take into account sales as well as purchases. In re Comverse Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-cv-1825, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2007);
• A managing underwriter can owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to an issuer in connection with a public offering of the issuer stock, even in the absence of any contractual agreement. Professor John C. Coffee, renowned Columbia University securities law professor, commenting on the ruling, stated: “It’s going to change the practice of all underwriting.” EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y. 3d 11 (2005);
• Purchasers of options have standing to sue under federal securities laws. In re Green Tree Fin. Corp. Options Litig., Civ. No. 97-2679, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13986 (D. Minn. July 29, 2002);
• Shareholders have a right to a jury trial in derivative actions. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970);
• A company may have the obligation to disclose to shareholders its Board’s consideration of important corporate transactions, such as the possibility of a spin-off, even before any final decision has been made. Kronfeld v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 832 F.2d 726 (2d Cir. 1987);
• Specific standards for assessing whether mutual fund advisors breach fiduciary duties by charging excessive fees. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., Inc., 740 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1984); and
• Management directors of mutual funds have a duty to make full disclosure to outside directors “in every area where there was even a possible conflict of interest.” Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369, 376 (1st Cir. 1971).