Pierce Atwood’s Litigation Group includes more than 45 attorneys that regularly handle almost all kinds of cases – from national class actions to regulatory matters to cases of more modest complexity such as foreclosures and other retail banking work. The group is supported by capable paralegals and administrative staff who handle support tasks efficiently and economically. We provide counsel to our financial institution clients in a wide variety of litigation, arbitration, and pre-litigation matters, including:

  • Consumer class actions
  • Consumer fraud claims
  • Interbank litigation stemming from check or payment frauds
  • IP Litigation
  • Data breach incidents
  • Grand jury and regulatory investigations
  • Wrongful termination and employment discrimination claims
  • Workouts, bankruptcy proceedings
  • Insurance claims and recoveries
  • Suits on notes, bonds, guarantees and other evidence of debt
  • Mortgage foreclosures and collection matters
  • Vendor disputes

When things go wrong, we conduct internal investigations and counsel corporate clients on strategies to root out and prevent corporate wrongdoing, limit collateral damage and manage related regulatory and law enforcement proceedings. Working closely with our litigation attorneys, we help financial institution clients develop successful strategies to avoid and resolve claims before litigation commences, and to control damage and achieve successful outcomes once it does.

Representative Experience

In a case that should be of interest to manufacturers and distributors, and especially to suppliers of building products, Pierce Atwood’s class action defense team defeated class certification in a building products case in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs alleged defective design and manufacture of decking sold by our client. After extensive fact and expert discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and a hearing was held. On September 21, 2015, District Judge Denise Casper issued her decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion, ruling that individualized issues of causation and injury precluded findings of commonality, typicality and adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The judge based her ruling, in part, on evidence that only a small percentage of purchasers had reported problems with the decking, and that almost all of the warranty claims those purchasers submitted had been honored.

Class Certification Victory in Building Products Case