Mr. Black is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame (B.B.A., 2011, summa cum laude), where he received the Brother Cyprian, C.S.C. award for achieving the highest grade point average among Accountancy majors. He then attended the University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 2014, magna cum laude), where he was Editor-in-Chief of Volume 29 of the ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law. Mr. Black joined Wolf Popper in 2020 after serving as an Assistant Attorney General in the Litigation Bureau of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. He was was named a Rising Star in securities litigation by Super Lawyers (New York--Metro Edition) in 2021 and in 2022.
Mr. Black has been part of the litigation team on numerous high-profile cases at Wolf Popper, including:
Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co., United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No. 14-cv-4090): This consumer class action alleged that Charmin Freshmates flushable wipes were not actually flushable. Following several years of hard-fought litigation, the parties reached a settlement providing significant refunds to purchasers of Freshmates (up to $50.20 per household) and requiring the removal of the representation that Freshmates are “safe for sewer and septic systems.”
Kirkland v. WideOpenWest Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Commercial Division (No. 653248/2018): This securities class action alleged that the cable company WideOpenWest (“WOW”) misled investors by making numerous false or misleading statements about the company’s prospects in connection with its initial public offering. The plaintiffs defeated the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the case settled for a payment of over seven million dollars ($7,025,000.00) to a class of affected shareholders.
Kaur v. Envision Healthcare Corp., United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (No. 19-cv-2480): This case was brought on behalf of emergency department patients who received surprise medical bills because, unbeknownst to them, the emergency department doctors were out-of-network with their health insurance plans, even though the hospital was in-network. Wolf Popper negotiated a favorable settlement, resulting in bill write-offs or refunds to affected patients, as well as additional disclosures about the network status of emergency department physicians.
In re Conduent Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 19-cv-8237): This securities class action alleges that Conduent Inc. and two of its top executives overstated to investors the progress that the company was making in modernizing the IT infrastructure supporting its electronic toll collection business. Wolf Popper’s litigation efforts resulted in defeating the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and obtaining class certification.
Casey v. Doctor’s Best, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California (No. 20-cv-1325): This consumer class action concerned claims that Doctor’s Best dietary supplements labeled as containing “Glucosamine Sulfate” did not actually contain that substance, but instead contained a different substance, Glucosamine Hydrochloride. Wolf Popper negotiated an excellent settlement on behalf of a nationwide class, in which purchasers of the product could receive up a refund of up to 60%, and Doctor’s Best agreed not to represent that any of its products contain Glucosamine Sulfate unless they actually contain that substance.
Edwards v. McDermott International Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (No. 18-cv-4330): This is a securities class action lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of McDermott International, Inc. alleging that the company and two of its former top executives made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the true risks and costs of McDermott’s May 2018 merger with Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V. Wolf Popper represents the Lead Plaintiff and a proposed class of shareholders asserting claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lead Plaintiff successfully defeated the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the case is ongoing.