Plaintiffs’ lawyers must identify anonymous witnesses in Aeropostale securities fraud case
Some witnesses in a securities fraud lawsuit against clothing retailer Aeropostale Inc. are anonymous no more.
May 02, 2013 at 07:35 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Some witnesses in a securities fraud lawsuit against clothing retailer Aeropostale Inc. are anonymous no more. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon has ordered the plaintiffs' lawyers (representing the city of Providence, R.I.) to identify nine witnesses who were cited anonymously in the complaint.
The lawsuit itself dates back to October 2011, when Providence alleged that Aeropostale was concealing problems from its investors—namely too much inventory and not enough sales. Once revealed, the problems caused the company's stock price to drop. When McMahon declined to dismiss the lawsuit in March, the case moved into discovery, prompting the order to reveal the witnesses.
According to Thomson Reuters, plaintiffs' lawyers frequently include confidential witnesses in securities fraud cases, who are often former employees of the company being sued. But defendants tend to feel that the allegations of these witnesses can be unsound.
In this case, the plaintiffs' lawyers strategy was to “dump them in a long list of names,” and let the defendants try to figure out who was who. But McMahon wasn't having it.
“Actually, I can resolve this,” she wrote. “There are no 'confidential witnesses' in this case. Identify them immediately.”
For more InsideCounsel coverage of securities lawsuits, see below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Adapting to AI and the Needs of Lawyers Will Be Key For Shutts & Bowen, Says Incoming Ft. Lauderdale Leader
- 2What Qualities Will Distinguish Good from Great Service In 2025?
- 3The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
- 4Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
- 5Lawyer's Retirement Benefits Excluded From Marital Property
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
