Bill Norton litigates securities fraud, corporate governance and other complex class and commercial disputes. Bill has represented public pension schemes, union pension funds, investment companies, banks, and other institutional and individual investors in federal, state, and appeals courts across the country. He also has experience representing whistleblowers reporting violations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission law under the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program and litigation under the False Claims Act. FEDERAL SECURITIES FRAUD LITIGATION Bill is a member of the litigation teams that represent institutional investors as lead counsel in litigation involving Investment Technology Group, Inc . ; Riot Blockchain, Inc . ; and Medtronic, Inc. He also played a key role in the following cases: Bennett v Sprint Nextel Corp. ($ 131 million recovery *) City of Brockton Retirement System v Avon Products, Inc. ($ 62 million recovery *) Hill v. State Street Corporation (US $ 60M * recovery) Employee Retirement Scheme v. Hospira, Inc. (US $ 60M * recovery) Relating to Hewlett-Packard Company securities dispute (US $ 60M * recovery) of USD 57 million *) In relation to Medtronic, Inc. securities litigation (recovery of USD 43 million *) Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices (recovery of USD 29.5 million *) Ross v. Career Education Corporation (recovery of 27, $ 5M *) SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATIONBill was a member of teams litigating the following cases: Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder (payment of $ 16.7M to the company and significant corporate governance reforms *) In re Walgreen Co Derivative litigation (corporate governance reforms that ensure compliance with the Controlled Substances Act *) MERGER AND AC QUITITION LITIGATIONBill has institutional action arre represented in litigation relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions, including the following: In re Allion Healthcare, Inc. shareholder litigation ($ 4 million to shareholders *) In re RehabCare Group, Inc., shareholder litigation ($ 2.5 million Payment), Amending the Merger Agreement and Additional Disclosures to Shareholders *) Regarding Atheros Communications Shareholder Litigation (injunction delaying shareholder voting and requiring additional disclosures to shareholders in the event of a $ 3.1 billion merger *) Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v PLATO Learning, Inc. (injunction requiring additional shareholder information on a $ 143 million private equity buyout *) regarding the Shaw Group's shareholder dispute (class-wide opt-in discretion and additional Shareholder Information on a $ 3 Billion Merger *) OTHER SECURITIES, CONSUMER FRAUD AND COMMERCIAL DISPUTES Bill has also represented clients in a wide variety of securities, consumer fraud and trade disputes, including the following: Class action lawsuit on behalf of satellite dealers against the EchoStar Corporation Resulting in Approximately $ 83M Settlement * Class action lawsuit on behalf of bondholders in relation to alleged Ponzi scheme resulting in $ 7.8 million recovery * Class action lawsuit against DirecTV for early cancellation charges litigation on behalf of a German Bank in relation to investing in mortgage-backed secured debtv Federal and State Lawsuits Relating to Variable Life Insurance Investments Submitted to the Madoff Ponzi Scheme Litigation on behalf of Real Estate Investors Relating to Luxury Real Estate Real Estate Development Prior to joining Motley Rice, Bill worked in the New York office of an international securities and commercial litigation law firm. While studying law, Bill was the Editor of the Boston University Law Review and a G. Joseph Tauro Distinguished Scholar. He served as a clerk in the US Attorney's Office for the Massachusetts District, represented asylum seekers at Greater Boston Legal Services, and studied law at the University of Oxford. Prior to law school, Bill worked for the US Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina and the Charleston Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program. * Please remember that each case is different. Every result we get for one customer on one matter does not necessarily mean that similar results can be obtained for other customers.
Add a review