About the Firm

Julie & Holleman is a boutique law firm dedicated to protecting shareholder rights, holding companies’ directors and officers accountable for their misconduct, and improving corporate governance. The firm is based in New York but handles cases in state and federal courts across the country. We handle various types of shareholder litigation, including mergers and acquisitions cases, shareholder derivative actions, and securities fraud class actions. Julie & Holleman’s attorneys also have experience in complex commercial and business litigation, antitrust actions, consumer cases, and employment matters.

Our lawyers have a proven track record of success in obtaining recoveries worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders and their companies. The firm’s attorneys have also secured critical and sweeping corporate governance changes that will prevent future corporate misconduct. Julie & Holleman’s attorneys have won major, precedent-setting victories before federal and state courts across the country.

The firm combines the experience, skills, and sophistication of a large law firm with special attention to our clients’ needs that only a boutique can provide. Before starting Julie & Holleman, the firm’s attorneys worked at leading plaintiffs’ and defense firms. The trust our clients place in us to fight for their rights and secure their investments fuels our passion and dedication to our work.

If you are a shareholder and believe you have been injured by corporate wrongdoing, please contact us to discuss how we can help.

Significant Achievements

Julie & Holleman’s attorneys have successfully litigated cases in state and federal courts across the country and have secured hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of companies and their shareholders. The firm has also been involved in numerous precedential decisions. Listed below are some of our attorneys’ noteworthy accomplishments:

Merger Litigation

• In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (Del. Ch.) – Obtained $83.75 million recovery for former Terraform shareholders in connection with take-private of company by Brookfield Asset Management. Case involved years of hard-fought litigation including two successful, precedent-setting appeals to the Delaware Supreme Court, millions of pages document discovery, extensive discovery motion practice, and numerous depositions. The court acknowledged that the case involved “a high degree of complexity,” and praised the settlement as “undoubtedly provid[ing] significant value to class members.”
• In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Del. Ch.) – Challenged third-party buyout of online betting company and secured $22 million settlement in case where the court acknowledged that the claims were “difficult to value” and where Plaintiffs faced “considerable risk at trial.” Plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss and engaged in significant discovery.
• KBC Asset Management NV v. Marsh (SCANA Corp.) (S.C. Ct. Common Pleas) – Obtained $63 million in settlement of class action and derivative claims after company merged in the wake of criminal and regulatory investigations stemming from abandonment of major nuclear construction project. The settlement is believed to be the largest ever recovery for a merger class action involving a South Carolina corporation.
• Englehart v. Brown (Flow International Corp.) (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cnty.) – Obtained a $12.75 million settlement following fact discovery and expert discovery. The settlement was the largest ever recovery in a merger class action involving a Washington corporation.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

• In re R1 RCM Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Del. Ch.) – Obtained $45.4 million recovery and significant enhancement of stockholder governance rights in a “legally and factually complex” action challenging a recapitalization transaction. Case involved extensive discovery, including depositions, and significant motion practice. At the settlement hearing, the Court praised the parties’ efforts: “I know this was a hard-fought litigation. It was a good result. I commend counsel on both sides.“
• In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (Del. Ch.) – Obtained rescission of 75% of the more than $50 million in stock and options awarded by bank directors to themselves following corporate reorganization. Settlement praised by approving court as an “excellent result” that recovered “significant value that was wrongfully diverted from the company.” Case involved years of hard-fought litigation including a successful, precedent-setting appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court following the trial court’s initial dismissal of the case.
• Willcox v. Dolan (The Madison Square Garden Company) (Del. Ch.) – Recovered stock award valued at more than $30 million in action challenging compensation paid to CEO-controlling shareholder. The Delaware Court of Chancery praised the settlement as an “excellent” result for the company and its shareholders.
• Pfeiffer v. Toll (Toll Brothers Inc.) (Del. Ch.) – Obtained cash recovery of $16.25 million in action alleging that corporate officers and directors sold stock while possessing material nonpublic information concerning the falling fortunes of the company and its industry.

Other Shareholder Litigation

• In re Google Inc. Class C Shareholder Litigation (Del. Ch.) – Secured payment of more $552 million in stock to investors, in settlement reached on eve of trial in action challenging the creation of new securities intended to entrench the control of Google by its founding executives.  Settlement also strengthened power of Google’s independent directors to police founders’ transfer of stock and corporate control.
• Freudenberg v. E*TRADE Financial Corp. (S.D.N.Y.) – Secured a landmark $79 million settlement for the benefit of E*Trade shareholders in a securities fraud class action alleging that the company misrepresented the risk of its investment in subprime mortgage-backed securities.
• Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Secured landmark rulings from a California federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that shareholders had standing to pursue claims even if they could not prove they bought registered shared or unregistered shares in novel “direct listing” IPO.