Lauren M. Rosenberg

Some of Rosenberg’s representative matters include:

Securities Litigation

• Representing Anadarko Petroleum in putative class action securities litigation in Texas federal court and double derivative litigation in Delaware federal court alleging Anadarko made false and misleading statements concerning the company’s business and operations in the Shenandoah deepwater oil field.
• Representing Dfinity, an international organization developing blockchain technology, in purported class action securities litigation in California state and federal court related to the issuance of Dfinity’s Internet Computer Project (“ICP”) master governance tokens, securing back‑to‑back wins for Dfinity, first obtaining a summary judgment victory in the state court action—an important win in the cryptocurrency space in a largely unsettled area of the law—then securing dismissal of the federal court action. She continues to represent Dfinity on appeal.
• Representing Stanley Black & Decker and certain officers in putative class action securities litigation, as well as related derivative actions, in Connecticut federal court alleging the company made false and misleading statements concerning demand for its tool manufacturing business.
• Representing Endava and certain officers in putative class action securities litigation in New York federal court alleging the company made false and misleading statements concerning the strength of its business prior to the release of its 2Q 2024 earnings results, following which the company’s stock price dropped more than 40%.
• Representing Oddity Tech and certain officers in putative class action securities litigation in New York federal court alleging the company made false and misleading statements concerning its business and operations in connection with its 2023 IPO.
• Won back-to-back dismissals to defeat putative class action securities litigation filed against First Solar and certain senior executives in Arizona federal court alleging defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company’s solar modules and project development business. She also represented First Solar in related shareholder derivative litigation, which was voluntarily dismissed.
• Won the dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit filed in New York state court against current and former directors and officers of Novartis AG and several Novartis subsidiaries alleging defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Novartis by failing to conduct adequate oversight of the company’s operations. 
• Secured a favorable settlement shortly before trial for Micro Focus International (now OpenText) and certain officers in putative securities class action litigation in California state court and New York federal court concerning its $8.8 billion acquisition of certain of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s software assets.
• Secured a favorable settlement for Akorn and certain officers in a consolidated securities class action litigation and a consolidated derivative action in Illinois federal court related to certain company acquisitions.

• Secured a favorable settlement on the eve of trial for First Solar in a securities class action in Arizona federal court alleging that First Solar and several officers and executives concealed manufacturing issues with its solar modules. She also represented First Solar in a related opt‑out class action and derivative action.

• Secured a favorable settlement for Juno Therapeutics and certain officers in a securities class action in Washington federal court alleging that defendants failed to disclose side effects associated with an immunotherapy cancer treatment.
• Secured a favorable settlement for Westpac Banking Corporation and its CEO in putative class action securities litigation in Oregon federal court alleging that Westpac failed to timely disclose regulatory violations.

Antitrust Litigation

• Representing Morgan Stanley in a series of individual and class action lawsuits in New York federal court alleging collusion among banks to restrain competition by preventing the development of anonymous exchange trading of various complex financial products, including credit default swap auctions, interest rate swaps and stock loans. Ms. Rosenberg argued and won a Second Circuit decision affirming the complete dismissal of one of these actions concerning stock loans.
• Representing OpenX, a digital advertising platform, as plaintiff in an action against Google in Virginia federal court alleging that Google’s anticompetitive conduct in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets has stifled innovation and harmed competition in violation of the Sherman Act. The action was filed in the wake of the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit concerning Google’s monopolization of the digital advertising industry.
• Secured a favorable settlement for Westpac Banking Corporation in a putative class action asserting, inter alia, antitrust, RICO and Commodity Exchange Act claims premised upon alleged manipulation of the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (BBSW).

Other Commercial Litigation

• Secured a favorable settlement for Yale New Haven Health (“YNHH”) in litigation in Connecticut claiming that Prospect Medical Holdings breached an Asset Purchase Agreement concerning the acquisition of three Connecticut hospitals and that YNHH was not required to close the transaction.
• Secured a favorable settlement for Bombardier in a bondholder action, which alleged that recent divestitures constituted a breach of certain covenants in Bombardier’s indentures, and sought to invalidate default waivers obtained through a consent solicitation.
• Won the complete dismissal with prejudice of litigation filed against Morgan Stanley by Moby S.p.A., an Italian shipping company, in New York state court alleging tortious interference with Moby’s business relations.
• Represented Akorn in litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding Fresenius Kabi’s termination of the parties’ $4.3 billion merger agreement. Following expedited proceedings, the case culminated in a one‑week bench trial and subsequent expedited appeal. It is one of a handful of cases regarding termination rights arising from material adverse event (MAE) provisions in merger agreements to be tried to a decision, and the first such appeal decided by the Delaware Supreme Court.