Cohn Lifland represents businesses, financial institutions, private and public pension funds, and private individuals in a broad range of complex and sophisticated litigation involving securities fraud, antitrust, product liability, class actions, Qui Tam, shareholder oppression and derivative litigation, fiduciary claims, investment, brokerage and other commercial disputes. 
We are seasoned trial attorneys, regularly appearing on behalf of clients in state and federal courts and in arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (formerly the NASD and regulatory and arbitration functions of the NYSE), the American Arbitration Association and other alternate dispute resolution venues.   We are called upon frequently by some of the most prestigious law firms in the United States to assist them with their complex litigation in both state and federal courts in New Jersey.  We initiate our representation in each matter with a thorough examination of the issues involved and work with our clients to develop a strategy that best meets their legal and business objectives to achieve favorable results in the most cost-effective manner consistent with proper representation. Cohn Lifland has been involved in numerous leading cases which have established important precedents both statewide and nationwide.  We have attained billions of dollars of recoveries on behalf of our clients. 

Selected Cases 

In re AT&T Securities Litigation, 455 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2006) in which we achieved a $100 million recovery for the benefit of the class defrauded shareholders;

Gould v. Reufenacht, 471 U.S. 701 (1985) in which we succeeded in convincing the United States Supreme Court to reject the “sale of business doctrine” which previously had denied the benefit of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws to participants in many private stock transactions; 

In re: PSE&G Shareholder Litigation, 173 N.J. 258 (2002) in which the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted new, liberalized standards for a shareholder instituting derivative litigation;

U.S. ex rel. Quinn v. Omnicare Inc., 382 F.3d 432 (3d Cir. 2004) in which the Third Circuit established standards for Qui Tam litigation and in which we were successful in establishing the rule that pharmaceutical suppliers to long term care facilities in New Jersey have no obligation to reimburse Medicaid for returned medications, even if those medications later were resold by those suppliers;

In re Diet Drugs Litigation, in which we succeeded in obtaining certification of a class for medical monitoring for heart valve damage on behalf of individuals who ingested the drug phentermine/fenfluramine (phen/fen) and obtained over $1 billion in compensation to fund that medical monitoring program;

In re Remeron Antitrust Litigation, 367 F. Supp. 2d 675 (D.N.J. 2005) which resulted in a $75 million recovery for the benefit of a class consisting of the purchasers of Remeron;

Willis v. Rubiera Zim, 705 F. Supp. 205 (D.N.J. 1988) in which the court clarified the right of arbitrators to award punitive damages to an investor against a stockbroker.