Jake Walker is a partner who focuses primarily on federal securities litigation throughout the country. He has been named a “Rising Star” in securities litigation since 2016 by Super Lawyers.
Among other cases, Jake is actively litigating on behalf of investors against Immunomedics, Inc. (D. N.J.) related to the company’s misrepresentations about FDA inspections of its drug manufacturing facilities; Lyft, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) arising out of its 2019 initial public offering; Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (W.D. Okla.) arising from the indictment of the CEO of the company’s most significant division over bribery in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria; Mattel (C.D. Cal.) related to the company’s restatement of financial results; Synchronoss Technologies (D. N.J.) related to the company’s sale of a profitable business division; and Trevena (E.D. Pa.) related to the Company’s public statements concerning their interactions with the FDA. Jake is also instrumental in the appeal to the First Circuit on behalf of investors in Keryx Biopharmaceuticals (1st Cir.) arising from the company’s misstatements concerning a key supplier.
In the past year, Jake has led litigation teams that recovered $32.8 million from Snap, Inc. in litigation arising from its initial public offering (Cal. Sup. Ct.) and $25 million from the Tezos Foundation (N.D. Cal.), in litigation arising from the cryptocurrency’s initial coin offering. Both cases are awaiting preliminary approval. Jake has also obtained recoveries on behalf of investors in EZCORP, Inc. (W.D. Tex.), Amicus Therapeutics (D. N.J.), Atossa Therapeutics (W.D. Wash.), Onyx Pharmaceuticals (Cal. Sup. Ct.), and Globalscape, Inc. (W.D. Tex.), among others.
In addition to his securities litigation work, Jake also assisted the firm in its work on the $14.7 billion settlement in the Volkswagen Diesel engine multi-district litigation, and has also led consumer litigation, including obtaining 100% recovery of damages for Massachusetts subscribers to newspapers published by Gatehouse Media, who were overcharged by the company.
Prior to joining Block & Leviton in 2015, Jake was an associate at two of the country’s top defense firms: Gibson Dunn in Palo Alto and Skadden, Arps in Boston. There, he represented boards of directors, corporate acquisition targets, and acquirers in litigation related to mergers and acquisitions. Jake represented defendants in litigation related to the $5.3 billion private equity acquisition of Del Monte Foods Company in state and federal courts in California and in the Delaware Court of Chancery, as well as in litigation related to Intel’s $7.7 billion acquisition of McAfee Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. He has also represented numerous third parties, including various investment banks, in M&A litigation in California and Delaware courts.
While Jake’s ten-year career has centered on securities and corporate governance litigation, Jake also has significant experience representing several large technology companies, including in the defense of consumer class actions related to privacy and technology issues. He is a Certified Information Privacy Professional and has a deep understanding of technology and privacy issues. Jake has also represented companies in antitrust class actions and investigations, stockholder derivative actions, securities class actions, and in investigations before the F.T.C. and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
Jake graduated from Babson College with a B.S. degree in Business Administration in 2001 and received his law degree, with honors, from the University of Michigan in 2010.
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; settlement pending for $30 million, making it the largest post-close merger and acquisition settlement in California state court history
litigated this securities class action against Amicus and its executives, which resulted in a successful $3.75 million settlement for the class
successfully litigated and settled securities class action, resulting in $3.5 million settlement for affected class members following successful 9th Circuit appeal