In a once-in-a-generation securities trial, a team at Latham & Watkins brought home a defense verdict for client NextGen Healthcare Inc. in state court in Orange, County, California. The Latham team, led by Michele Johnson, the global chair of the firm's litigation and trial department and partner Peter Wald, nabbed top runners-up honors this week for fending off a rare "holder's" claim from former company board member Ahmed Hussein. Hussein claimed he would have sold off shares prior to financial restatement by the company had executives not misled him. He was seeking $400 million in damages. However, Hussein, who had engaged in a number of proxy fights seeking to take control of the company's board in prior years, couldn't convince jurors that statements by company executives had convinced him to hold onto the shares when he otherwise could have sold them. The Latham trial team included partners Nicholas Siciliano and Andrew Gray and associates Whitney Weber and Katie George.

The folks at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher landed a bevy of runner-up-worthy results this week. First up, a team led by Ted Boutrous, Sam Liversidge and Chris Dusseault got an important decision from the Fourth Circuit digging into the numerosity prong of class certification. The appellate court vacated and remanded a previously certified class of 35 large drug wholesalers pursuing antitrust claims against Merck based on allegations the company conspired with generic company Glenmark to inflate the price of a cholesterol-lowering drug. The court concluded: "Because the district court's numerosity analysis improperly looked to the impracticability of individual suits rather than joinder, we are compelled to conclude that legal error infected the court's class-certification decision." Merck's codefendant Glenmark was represented by Steve Reed and Brendan Fee of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Gibson Dunn partners Theane Evangelis and Blaine Evanson got a win for client Uber Technologies Inc. at the Ninth Circuit in the long-running legal brawl over claims Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors. The appellate court held that drivers don't fall within an exemption to the Federal Arbitration Act reserved for workers who engage in "foreign or interstate commerce." Relying on trial court findings that only a small portion of Uber rides started and ended in different states or at an airport, the Ninth Circuit concluded that "interstate movement cannot be said to be a 'central part of the class members' job description.'"