Stuart J. Guber


Stuart J. Guber has over thirty years of experience in complex litigation. Practice areas include representing individual and institutional investors including state, county, municipal and Taft-Hartley union pension plans and health & welfare funds in securities class actions and opt-out litigation under federal securities laws, merger & acquisition litigation and derivative actions under state breach of fiduciary law. Taft-Hartley union work also included drafting and editing plan documents for compliance with ERISA and representing union in ERISA related litigation. Practice areas also include focus on class action consumer protection litigation under state and common law, some trusts and estates litigation, FINRA arbitrations (both plaintiff and defense), antitrust and other commercial litigation.

Mr. Guber has an extensive background in counseling and representing clients consisting of individual investors and institutional investors, including state pension plans (Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana, Connecticut), in investor protection, corporate compliance and corporate governance; advising consumers bringing class actions under state consumer protection laws and advising shareholders, employees, company, beneficiaries and the plan itself on ERISA related issues and litigation.

Mr. Guber has strong leadership, advocacy, communication, negotiation and trial skills including conducting oral argument at trial and appellate courts, defending and conducting depositions of key party and expert deponents. Ability to take case from inception through settlement and/or trial and appeals. Mr. Guber has an extraordinary record of achievement.

He was trial counsel in Robbins v. Koger Properties, No. 90-896-civ-J-10 (M.D. Flo.) in which the jury awarded $81.3 million. Mr. Guber also created new law in trusts and estates concerning treatment of spendthrift trusts under a new theory, which was successful and subsequently codified by the Pennsylvania legislature. Successfully settled In re Rite-Aid Corporation Securities Litigation for $325 million. 2001 WL 35963382 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2001). Received both compensatory ($227,000) and punitive damages ($100,000) in a securities arbitration involving public customers (father and daughter suing brokerage for churning and suitability. Maiocco v. Greenway Capital Corp. Mr. Guber has also been successful in shareholder merger & acquisition litigation, securing a bump up in the price per share on behalf of the target company shareholders from $8.40 to $9.25, an increase of over 10% per share. Minerva Group, LP v. v. Keane, Index No.800621 (Sup. Ct. NY). He is the first to successfully prosecute a data breach case brought as a shareholder derivative action against The Home Depot, Inc. In re The Home Depot, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 1:15-cv-2999-TWT (N.D. GA.). The case settled for corporate governance and certain cyber security protocol modifications. Bloomberg News called the settlement “a good corporate security governance improvement blueprint for other companies” and “a roadmap for other companies … and … look to the settlement for ‘additional guidance’ on how to conduct post-breach remediative actions. BNA, May 1, 2017. Another instance of valuable corporate governance was in the Chipotle shareholder derivative case based on several food poisoning incidents in different parts of the country. As part of the settlement, we insisted on the creation of a Food Safety Council consisting of a majority of independent safety food experts that would file periodic reports with the company’s board and senior management. Mr. Guber has also had the opportunity to litigate against current White House Counsel to President Trump since December 10, 2018, Pat Cipollone. In that litigation, a consumer class action against the Knights of Columbus (represented by Mr. Cipollone) for disseminating false and misleading information concerning the timeliness of the “vanishing” premiums of whole life insurance policies, plaintiffs were able to reach a settlement valued at $22 million. Nepomuceno v. Knights of Columbus, No. Civ. A. 96 C 4789 (N.D. Ill.).

  • State Bar of Georgia
  • State Bar of Pennsylvania
  • United States District Court for the District of Colorado
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • J.D., Temple University School of Law, May 1990
  • B.S. Business Administration, Temple University, December 1985 (major in Accounting, minors in Finance and Statistics)
  • Naimi et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, et al., no. 18-55975, 2019 WL 6998638 (9th Circuit, Dec. 20, 2019): (conducted oral argument in consumer class action alleging deceptive advertising. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the dismissal of the complaint and analyzed the impact of plausibility on Rule 8 notice pleading. The Ninth Circuit found that: (i) “consumers plausibly alleged that coffeemaker’s product label conveyed the implied representation that each can of the beverage contained two shots of expresso brewed from the same beans that coffeemaker used in its cafes;” and that (ii) “consumers plausibly alleged that coffeemaker’s canned beverage contained. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded).
  • South Ferry LP, #2 et al. v. Killinger, et al., 542 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2008): (Reestablished the core operations doctrine as a basis for pleading scienter under the heightened pleading standard in federal securities litigation pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The 9th Circuit overruled its earlier decision in In re Read-Rite Corp. Securities Litigation, 335 F.3d 843 that prohibited use of the core products doctrine). Mr. Guber was involved in both the Read-Rite case and Killinger.
  • Wagner v. First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp., 464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (reversing district court’s refusal to permit repleading on securities fraud complaint where district court conditioned repleading on payment by plaintiffs to defense for their fees and costs in researching and briefing the motion to dismiss).
  • Schreiber v. Kellogg, 50 F.3d 264 (3rd Cir. 1994): case of first impression establishing that section 157(c) of the Restatement (2d) of Trusts, may be used by creditors to reach spendthrift trust interests to satisfy claims for services or materials that preserved or benefitted the beneficiary’s interest in the trust). The District Court dismissed the motion and the Third Circuit reversed and remanded. This case involved a trust created by the patriarch of the John Wanamaker department stores. Subsequently, the Pennsylvania legislature codified section 157(c).
  • Young v. Ault, et al., Case No.: CV 18-06587 SJO, 2019 WL 2970832 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) (Court denied motion to dismiss in large part in shareholder derivative action and held that complaint successfully pled breach of fiduciary duty claims. Court previously found that plaintiffs had adequately pled demand futility, see Young v. Ault, et al, Case No.: 2:18-cv-6587 SJO, 2019 WL 1718676 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2019).
  • Fitzhenry-Russell, et al. v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00564 NC, 2017 WL 4224723 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017) (motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim were denied in consumer class action).
  • In re the Wendy’s Company Shareholder Derivative Action, Case No. 1:16-cv-1153, 2018 WL 6605394 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 17, 2018) (appointed lead counsel in contested lead counsel motion in shareholder derivative action concerning a massive data breach. Court held that efforts to be inclusive, prior experience in data breach cases, and impressive expert consultant formed the basis of the court’s decision).
  • In re Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund Securities Litigation, CA No. 08-11064-NMG, 2012 WL 6184269 (D. Mass. Dec. 10, 2012) (Court approved $25 million settlement in securities class action and awarded over $7 million in attorneys’ fees where class ultimately received 92% of their market losses).
  • In re NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Nos.2:06-CV-00570, 2007 WL 1976589 (D. Utah July 3, 2007) (court denied motion to dismiss in securities class action concerning materially false statements about the company’s drug PREOS in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Case ultimately settled for over $30 million.
  • Atwater v. National Football League Players Association, CA No. 1:06-CV-1510-JEC, 2007 WL 1020848 (N.D. Ga. March 29, 2007) (defeated motion to dismiss brought by NFL and NFLPA in case involving their failure to properly vet financial advisor who diverted the players’ funds).
  • In re ValuJet, Inc., Securities Litigation, 984 F. Supp. 1472 (N.D Ga. 1997) (defeated motion to dismiss in securities class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws where court sustained claims based on allegations that company and its officers made representations concerning airline’s profitability, plans for expansion and growth, and safety record, despite knowledge of airline’s numerous safety-related incidents and heightened scrutiny of airline by FAA satisfied pleading requirements of the PSLRA).
  • Schreiber v. Kellogg, 839 F. Supp. 1157 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (defeated post-trial motion seeking a stay of post judgment supersedeas bond while on appeal even where judgment debtor made showing of sufficient assets to satisfy judgment where plaintiff made a showing that a substantial portion of those assets were subject to spendthrift protection).

Latest Tweets

Contact Us

  • Address: 500 Sugar Mill Road, Bldg. A, Suite 245 Atlanta, GA 30350

  • Phone: (404) 205-8400

  • Email:

Follow Us