| Fletcher focuses his practice on securities and commercial litigation and has been recognized in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Business Lawyers in securities litigation (Tier 1, Texas) in 2006 and 2007; listed in the Legal 500 US directory for securities: shareholder litigation in 2007, and named a “Texas Super Lawyer” in securities litigation since 2005.
He is approved as an AIG/National Union Panel Counsel for Directors & Officers (securities claims) in Texas.
Regularly represents public companies and their corporate officers in securities fraud class actions and SEC investigations. Also admitted in Delaware, he frequently defends public companies and their directors against shareholder derivative claims and merger challenges alleging breach of fiduciary duties. He also conducts internal investigations for audit and special committees of corporate boards and actively litigates a wide variety of commercial disputes.
Recent cases include:
• Cyberonics, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2007 WL 1729977 (S.D. Tex. June 13, 2007) (dismissal with prejudice of indenture claim arising out of failure to file financial statements during internal investigation);
• In re Crown Castle Intern. Corp., --- S.W.3d ----, 2008 WL 222770 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.],2008) (dismissal of shareholder derivative action arising out of stock option granting practices; mandamus concerned discovery issues following dismissal).
• In re Integrated Elec. Servs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 54021 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2006), aff'd Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Integrated Elec. Servs., Inc., 497 F.3d 546 (Aug. 21, 2007) (dismissal with prejudice of securities fraud class action arising out of restatement, affirmed on appeal);
• Romero v. US Unwired, Inc., 2006 WL 2366342 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2006) and 2005 WL 2050280 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2005) (dismissal with prejudice of securities fraud claims, shareholder derivative claims, and denial of TRO sought prior to merger); and
• Sterling Trust Co. v. Adderley, 168 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (state court ruling on aiding and abetting claim against financial institution; court adopted reasoning set forth in amicus brief filed on our clients’ behalf). |
