Both Mr. Markham and Mr. Bishop have extensive experience litigating securities fraud in federal and state court under the elaborate federal statutes and the California blue-skies law. Both have successfully litigated substantial cases under Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the related regulation known as Rule 10b-5. Along the way, Mr. Markham and Mr. Bishop have had occasion to analyze, interpret and argue the complicated case law doctrines that concern the issues of sufficiently pleading wrongful scienter, transaction causation, loss causation, and the other necessary elements of a securities claim made under Rule 10b-5. Both have also litigated cases that arise under the anti-fraud provisions of the California Corporations Code. Securities laws are different from the common law doctrine of fraud, and the unwary often discover this point after it is too late to change course. To plead and prevail in a difficult securities case, it is necessary that the litigant successfully anticipate the applicable pleading standards, the requirement of both transaction and loss causation, and the necessity of proving a clear nexus between the alleged misrepresentation, the victim’s ensuing decision to purchase or sell a “security,” and the losses that the victim claims have arisen from this decision and are reasonably linked to the actionable misrepresentation.
Both Mr. Markham and Mr. Bishop are highly skilled practitioners in securities litigation, and we can bring claims and make defenses against them on the basis of our superior understanding of how securities cases are litigated in federal and state court.
Recently, Mr. Markham represented fifteen plaintiffs in a complicated securities case that he brought under the California Corporations Act in state court. In this case, he obtained judgments on their behalf against seven defendants for a total amount of $968,928.00. By these judgments, the plaintiffs obtained the right to full recovery of all of the money that the defendants had obtained from them by their fraudulent promotion and sale of securities in violation of the California Corporations Code and various common-law doctrines. These judgments constituted an unqualified victory for the firm’s clients in a very complex case of highly sophisticated securities fraud. The principal challenge in this matter was to investigate, uncover, and explain Defendants’ complicated scheme to defraud many victims over a period of several years. Case Name: Ngo et al. v. Nguyen et al. (LA Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC418361).
Our Ability to Accept Large Cases
Several times we have been opposed by teams of highly capable attorneys fielded by leading global law firms. In any such matter, or whenever the need arises, we can quickly assemble our own team of first-rate professionals who have worked with us successfully on prior occasion, and we can also procure essential litigation services from reliable outside service-providers, so that we are never outmatched or overwhelmed even by the largest or most pro-active global firm. We think that our work in these matters has reflected favorably on us, and we have obtained successful results for our clients in exceedingly difficult, sprawling, and complex antitrust controversies. All the while, we are able to maintain our reasonable billing arrangements because of the manner in which our practice is structured and our lean fixed costs.
Our Articles on Antitrust Law
Mr. Markham and Mr. Bona have given lectures on antitrust law for other attorneys (MCLE classes) and written extensively about antitrust law. Mr. Markham provides occasional commentary in his blog about antitrust issues that make the news, and Mr. Bona does this same in his own blog. Below you will find links to three articles on antitrust law written by Mr. Markham that have become reference sources for other attorneys and the general public:
The Qualcomm Case Isn’t Even a Close Call: Qualcomm Blatantly Misused Its Standard-Essential Patents to Restrain Trade and Monopolize Markets. By William Markham (© 2020).
The Extraordinary Qualcomm Case. The defining antitrust issues of our time are at stake in the landmark case of Fed Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2017, Case No. 17-CV-00220-LH) ("Qualcomm"). Qualcomm specifically concerns standard-essential patents and...
The DOJ’s Investigation of the Auto Producers’ Draft Agreement with California: It Is Misguided and Likely an Abuse of Power. By William Markham © 2019
The United States Department of Justice has reportedly begun an antitrust investigation of four major automakers for possible unlawful collusion in violation of United States antitrust law. The cause of this investigation? The automakers tentatively agreed with the...
I respectfully and strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Amex case, in which the Supreme Court ruled, by a narrow 5-4 majority, that the government plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case against American Express Company...
The Law Offices of William Markham, P.C.
- 402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101.
Tell Us About Your Case
Call 619.221.4400 now or fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.