1-888-375-7600

Contact Us

Stuart J. Guber - Attorney Profile

2001 Market Street 29th floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Phone: (215) 567-3500
Toll Free: (888) 375-7600
Fax: (215) 567-6019
Email: sguber@cprlaw.com

Stuart J. Guber

Stuart J. Guber is an accomplished litigator, with over twenty years experience specializing in complex business, financial and accounting litigation. Stuart has made a career of prosecuting violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of defrauded shareholders, pursuing derivative claims under state corporate law to redress misconduct committed by corporate officers and directors, and seeking to maximize shareholder value in merger and acquisition litigation. Over the last twenty years litigating individual and class cases, Mr. Guber has represented both individual investors and institutional investors including state and union pension plans. Stuart also has experience litigating class action cases for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), violations of the federal antitrust laws and to redress harm committed by corporations against consumers under federal and state law.

Participation in Landmark Cases:

  • In re Rite Aid Pharmacy Sec. Litig., MDL 1360 (E.D. Pa.) ($320 million settlement of securities class action in connection with massive accounting fraud involving numerous interrelated GAAP and GAAS issues against senior management and public auditors);

  • In re Tycom Ltd. Securities Litigation, Docket No. 03-CV-03540 (D.N.J.) ($79 million settlement in securities class action);

  • In re Providian Financial Corp. Sec. Litig., C 01-3952 (N.D. Cal.) ($65 million securities fraud class action settlement against bank\credit card company and its senior management regarding accounting for charge-offs, allowance for doubtful accounts and off balance sheet securitizations of outstanding account balances);

  • In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:06-cv-726 (W.D. Texas.) ($40 million settlement in securities fraud class action);

  • In re Bell South Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:02 2142 (N.D. Ga.) ($35 million settlement in securities class action litigation involving accounting for write-downs of goodwill in foreign operations);

  • In re Campbell Soup Sec.Litig., No. 1:00-CV-00152 (D. N.J.) ($35 million settlement in securities class action);

  • Paine v. Microwarehouse, Inc., No. 3:96-CV-01920 (D. Conn.) ($30 million settlement in securities fraud class action);

  • In re Premier Technologies, Inc. Sec. Litig. No. 98-CV-1804 (N.D. Ga.) ($20.75 million securities class action settlement);

  • Baker v. MBNA Corp., 05-cv-0272 (D. Del.) ($25 million settlement in class action securities litigation);

  • In re Boston Chicken, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:97-CV-01435 (D. Colo.) ($20 million class action settlement with company officers, directors, public auditors and underwriters involving complex accounting, securities and bankruptcy issues);

  • In re NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06cv00570 PGC (D. Utah) ($ 15 million class action securities settlement);

  • In re Policy Management, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. 3:00-CV-00130-JFA (D.S.C.) ($7.75 million securities class action settlement);

  • In re ValuJet, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. CIV A 1:96-CV-1355-TWT (N.D. Ga.) ($5 million securities fraud class action settlement);

  • Marsden v. Select Medical Corp., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-4020 (JCJ) (E.D. Pa.) ($5 million securities fraud class action settlement);

  • In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No. 1:02-CV-2332-JOF (N.D. Ga.) ($4.65 million class action securities fraud settlement);

  • Criddle v. CNF, Inc., C.A. No. 434340 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (successful derivative action resulted in corporate governance changes to address specific misconduct alleged in complaint relating to safety and maintenance reporting issues);

  • Maiocco, et al. v. Greenway Capital Corp., et al., NASD No. 94-04396 (lead trial counsel for plaintiffs in securities arbitration awarding compensatory damages of $227,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 on churning and unsuitability claims against brokerage firm);

  • Nepomuceno v. Knights of Columbus, No. Civ. A. 96 C 4789 (N.D. Ill.) ($22 million settlement in life insurance vanishing premium policy consumer fraud case).

Published Opinions

  • South Ferry LP v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2008); Koehler v. Brody, 483 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2007); Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp.,464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 50 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 1995); Marsden v. Select Med. Corp., 246 F.R.D. 480 (E.D. Pa. 2007);  In re NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2007 WL 1976589 (D. Utah July 3, 2007); In re Friedman’s Inc. Securities Litigation, 385 F.Supp.2d 1345 (N.D. Ga. 2005); In re Bellsouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 355 F.Supp.2d 1350 (N.D. Ga. 2005); Tri-Star Farms Ltd. v. Marconi, PLC, et al., 225 F.Supp.2d 567 (W.D. Pa. 2002); In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, 145 F.Supp.2d 574 (D.N.J. 2001); In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 146 F. Supp 2d 706 (E.D. Pa. 2001); In re ValuJet, Inc. Securities Litigation, 984 F.Supp.1472 (N.D. Ga.1997); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 194 B.R. 559 (E.D. Pa. 1996); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 839 F.Supp.1157 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 838 F.Supp.998 (E.D. Pa.1993).

Bar Admissions:

  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; State of Georgia; United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First, Third, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits; United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia; Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of Colorado and Eastern District of Michigan

 

Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Brain & Birth Injury Attorney | Personal Injury Attorney | Mesothelioma Attorney | Subrogation Lawyers

Copyright © 2005-2010 Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:The Law Firm of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC only provides legal advice after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship, which this website specifically does not create. Only after having entered into a written, signed agreement with the Law Firm of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC will an attorney-client relationship have been created. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the descriptions of awards and cases previously handled are not meant to be a guarantee of success.