Adam J. Blander
Partner
- Brooklyn Law School (J.D., 2013)
- McGill University (B.A., 2009)
- New York
- New Jersey
- U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
Before joining the firm, Adam clerked for New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe. A Brooklyn Law School Health Law and Policy Fellow (cum laude), Adam’s note “Codifying Common Law: The Self-Critical Analysis Privilege and the New Jersey Patient Safety Act,” was published in the Journal of Law and Policy in 2013. Adam also served as a research assistant for Professor Aaron Twerski and the late Professor Richard T. Farrell and as an intern with the Health Care Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
Experience
Below are some of Adam’s representative matters:- MAZ Partners L.P. v. Shear (In re: PHC Shareholder Litigation), 265 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D. Mass. 2017), aff’d 894 F.3d 419 (1st Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 202 L.Ed.2d 378: On behalf of stockholders of a behavioral health company arising from a stock-for-stock merger. Following a two-week jury trial, the Court ordered the acquired company’s CEO to disgorge a majority of the cash side-payment he received in exchange for the extinguishment of his super-voting shares.
- McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., C15-02904-WHA (N.D. Cal.): In a precedent-setting Order, the Court ruled that the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) requires mortgage payoff statements to disclose property insurance proceeds creditable against the debt, observing that “[n]o decision from our court of appeals has ever addressed the issue" but that “[a]s a matter of law, the bank is wrong.” Wolf Popper ultimately secured a settlement providing homeowners with 88% of the maximum available monetary recovery and requiring Wells Fargo to alter its practices to comply with TILA. Class members received over $2,500 per account.
- In re AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0396-AGB (Del. Ch.) ($40 million settlement on behalf of common stockholders arising from controller buyout); Martínek v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-8030-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) ($13 million settlement on behalf of preferred stockholders arising from the delisting of securities following the controller buyout).
- In re: MSG Networks Inc. Stockholders Class Action Litigation, 2021-0575-LWW (Del. Ch.) ($48.5 million class settlement reached three weeks before trial, arising from merger between sports cable network and Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp.).
- Lipman v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0054-SG, 2020 WL 6778781 Del. Ch. (Nov. 18, 2020): In this derivative action on behalf of limited partnerships (LPs) investing in automotive dealerships, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the motions to dismiss filed by the LPs’ general partner (GP), finding that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated that the GP’s executives had “looted” partnership assets, thereby excusing the plaintiffs from first demanding that the GP take corrective action. “I find none of [defendants’] arguments persuasive,” the Court found.
- In re Metrologic Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. L-6430-06 (N.J. Super. Ct.): The plaintiffs in this action alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims on behalf of stockholders of a technology company who were cashed out in a going-private merger. In 2018, the Court approved a settlement with the last remaining defendants, bringing the total recovery to $21,700,000.
- Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, 09-cv-118-VM (S.D.N.Y.): This action, on behalf of investors in feeder funds to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Ponzi scheme, completed in May 2016, when the Court approved a settlement with the last remaining defendant, bringing the total recovery to $235,250,000.
- Kosinski v. GGP, Inc., 214 A.3d 944 (Del. Ch. 2019) & In re GGP Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. 2018-0267 (Del. Ch.): Following a “books and records” trial, the Court of Chancery authorized the plaintiff-stockholder to investigate the acquisition of a commercial real estate company, praising him for “doing his homework.” In 2022, a subsequently-filed breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit challenging the acquisition was reinstated by the Delaware Supreme Court, which found that the complaint sufficiently demonstrated that the company’s disclosures regarding stockholders’ entitlement to seek the fair value of their shares in appraisal proceedings were “at best, materially misleading.” The parties reached a $42.5 million settlement less than two months before trial, which the Court found was “an excellent result after very lengthy and hard-fought litigation.”
Recognition
- Super Lawyers (New York - Metro Edition) Rising Star in securities litigation, 2017-2023
Case Updates | 10/29/2024
Publications | 08/21/2024
Case Updates | 06/21/2024
Case Updates | 04/10/2024
Case Updates | 02/01/2024
Case Updates | 12/19/2023
Case Updates | 08/14/2023
Case Updates | 06/01/2023
Case Updates | 02/09/2023
Case Updates | 01/03/2023
Case Updates | 11/16/2022
Case Updates | 10/27/2022
Case Updates | 03/11/2022
Case Updates | 02/03/2022
Case Updates | 09/27/2021
Case Updates | 01/25/2021
Case Updates | 11/18/2020
Case Updates | 08/14/2020
Case Updates | 08/30/2019