Robert P. Varian, senior counsel, served as a partner in Orrick's San Francisco office for 12 years, and was previously a partner in Clifford Chance US LLP and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison.

He has been named to Lawdragon's Top 500 Leading Lawyers in America list, one of the most elite accolades in the legal profession, and as one of the top 20 lawyers of the year by The California Lawyer. He is one of the few attorneys in the United States who has successfully tried securities class actions to verdict (twice), and won one of the National Law Journal's top 10 defense verdicts in the United States in the major securities class action jury trial.

Bob has extensive experience in defending securities class actions, SEC investigations and enforcement proceedings, and derivative lawsuits throughout the United States. He has led a wide variety of internal investigations centered in the United States and China, and has represented executives, directors and auditors in internal investigations, SEC investigations and enforcement actions, and in securities class actions and other shareholder litigation. He also has extensive experience in defending consumer class actions and complex business cases, and special expertise in representing Chinese companies and individuals in litigation and investigations.

Bob has successfully litigated numerous high profile cases that have received coverage in the national media.

Press Clippings Re Major Cases

  • “23andMe Can’t Kibosh Classwide Arbitration In False Ad Row,” Law360, October 19, 2015

  • “23andMe Stuck with Conflicting Arbitration Outcomes,” The Recorder, October 16, 2015

  • “Justices Snub Chesapeake Investor's Bid To Renew Fraud Suit,” Law360, October 5, 2015

  • “Nordstrom Wins in Suit Over Aircraft Disclosures,” Bloomberg BNA, September 30, 2015

  • “Nordstrom Escapes Suit Over Family's Private Plane Use,” Law360, September 24, 2015

  • “Nordstrom Says Family Paid Fairly For Private Plane Use,” Law360, July 14, 2015

  • “Cheaspeake Investors Knew Risks, High Court Told,” Law360, June 22, 2015

  • “Nordstrom Family Wants Plane Ride Suit Grounded,” Law360, May 22, 2015

  • “Citing "puffery," judge tosses Battlefield 4 game glitches case,” Reuters Legal, May 4, 2015

  • “EA Guns Down Shareholder Suit Over 'Battlefield 4' Bugs,” Law360, April 30, 2015

  • “Judge Shoots Down Shareholder Suit Over Electronic Arts' Battlefield 4 Game,” The Recorder, April 30, 2015

  • “Nordstrom Accused of Hiding Costs of Flying Family’s Planes,” Bloomberg, April 20, 2015

  • “Investor Asks High Court To Revive Chesapeake Fraud Claims,” Law360, April 17, 2015

  • “Lawyers Wary as California Supreme Court Eyes Arbitration,” Law.com, April 10, 2015

  • “Nordstrom Can't Keep Family Plane Ride Claims Sealed,” Law360, April 7, 2015

  • “Calif. Court Urged To Fix 23andMe Arbitration Split,” Law360, February 19, 2015

  • “With Arbitrators at Odds, 23andMe Suits Back in Court,” The Recorder, February 18, 2015

  • “23andMe Clients Can’t Arbitrate False Ad Claims As Class,” Law360, January 14, 2015

  • “Chesapeake Wants $1.1B 'Tagalong' Derivative Suit Nixed,” Law360, December 8, 2014

  • “Shareholders Failed To Plead Any Actionable Misstatements, Judge Rules,” Mealey's Litigation Report: Class Actions, December 5, 2014

  • “Shareholders Failed To Plead Any Actionable Misstatements, Judge Rules,” Mealey's Emerging Securities Litigation, November 1, 2014

  • “EA Beats Investor Suit Over ‘Battlefield 4’ Bugs,” Law360, October 21, 2014

  • “EA Investor Suit Over ‘Battlefield 4’ Bugs Nears Defeat,” Law360, October 10, 2014

  • “Rocket Fuel Turns to Orrick to Fend Off 'Bot' Claims,” The Recorder, October 1, 2014

  • “10th Circ. Ends Chesapeake Energy Class Action,” Law360, August 8, 2014

  • “Shareholder Failed To Plead Material Misrepresentation, 10th Circuit Panel Rules,” Mealey's Emerging Securities Litigation, August 1, 2014

  • “10th Circ. Affirms Chesapeake Win In $1B Investor Suit,” Law360, July 8, 2014

  • “23andMe Customers Ordered To Arbitrate False Ad Claims,” Law360, June 27, 2014

  • “Koh Tells 23andMe Lawyers to Shape Up,” The Recorder, April 30, 2014

  • “ACLU Sues ICE Over Unfair Telephone Policy,” ACLU-NC website, December 19, 2013

  • "Litigation Dept. of the Year: Winner Orrick," The Recorder, December 6, 2013

  • “Chesapeake Escapes ERISA Suit Over Falling Share Prices,” Law360, October 11, 2013

  • “The Snow Deal Won't Happen,” Daily Journal, May 17, 2002

  • “Ex-CEO not liable in federal trial,” The National Law Journal, February 18, 2002

  • “Despite Enron, Shareholder Lose Stock Drop Suit,” Daily Journal, February 12, 2002

  • “Judge Hands Defense Win in Securities Suit,” Daily Journal, August 25, 1998

  • “The Seven-Year Itch,” The American Lawyer, October, 1988


Posts by: Robert Varian

Time’s Up: Supreme Court Affirms Three-Year Deadline for Opting Out of Section 11 Class Actions

On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will have a significant effect on securities class action litigation, changing the strategic calculus for both institutional plaintiffs and defendants. In California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Anz Securities, Inc., No. 16-373, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) , the Court held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to the 3-year statute of repose for private damage claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  Thus, the filing of a class action complaint under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 does not toll the three-year statute of repose for individual claims that may be brought by putative class members who later decide to opt out of a class-wide settlement.

CalPERS arose out of two public securities offerings issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings in 2007 and 2008.  In September 2008, with Lehman in bankruptcy, a Section 11 class action was filed against Anz Securities and other underwriters to the offerings, alleging that the registration statements included material misstatements or omissions.  The class action complaint was consolidated with other securities suits against Lehman into a single multidistrict class action in the Southern District of New York.  CalPERS, an unnamed member of the putative class, subsequently filed a separate complaint alleging identical causes of action against the respondents in the Northern District of California in February 2011—more than three years after the offerings closed.  CalPERS’ individual suit was transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation.  CalPERS opted out of the class only after the class action reached a settlement.

READ MORE

Hold the Phone: SEC Takes One Last Stand Before the Tenth Circuit regarding the Constitutionality of the SEC’s Administrative Law Judges

Last week, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, imploring the court to reconsider a divided panel’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of its administrative law judges in Bandimere v. SEC.  In that ruling (detailed here), the Tenth Circuit overturned the Commission’s sanctions against Mr. Bandimere because the SEC administrative law judge (“ALJ”) presiding over Mr. Bandimere’s case was an inferior officer who should have been constitutionally appointed (rather than hired) to the position, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

Primarily relying on its prior submissions and Judge Monroe G. McKay’s dissent in the panel’s original ruling, the SEC argues that the original decision reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of ALJs and Supreme Court precedent, and risks throwing essential features of the agency into disarray. In particular, the SEC questioned the majority’s opinion that Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), was dispositive in equating special trial judges of tax court to the ALJs to find that the ALJs are inferior officers who must be constitutionally appointed.  The SEC distinguishes the roles of its ALJs from those of the special tax court trial judges by noting differences in their power and function.  First, the special trial judges are vested with authority, including the power to enforce compliance with their orders, that is different in degree and kind from the powers given to ALJs.  For example, both the special trial judges and ALJs have the power to issue subpoenas, but unlike the special trial judges, ALJs have no authority to enforce subpoenas.  ALJs can only request the Commission to seek enforcement of the subpoenas in district court.  In addition, unlike the special trial judges, ALJs cannot use contempt power—a hallmark of a court—to enforce any order it may issue.  Second, the function between the special trial judges and ALJs differ because the Tax Court in Freytag was required to defer to the special trial judge’s factual finding unless “clearly erroneous, whereas the SEC decides all questions of fact and law de novo.

READ MORE

Delaware Chancery Court Finds that Director Defendants Can Not “Merge Their Way Out of” Breach of Fiduciary Claims

court decision

On July 28, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court allowed claims of unfair dealing against the Board of property management company Riverstone National Inc. to survive where the directors facilitated a merger that forestalled a derivative suit against them.  The court held that by orchestrating a merger that extinguished a possible derivative action, the director defendants obtained a special benefit for themselves.  As a result, the directors were interested in the transaction, thereby rebutting the presumption of the business judgment rule, and triggering application of the “entire fairness” doctrine.

READ MORE

Former Hedge Fund Manager’s Civil Rights Suit Against New York U.S. Attorney Permitted to Proceed into Discovery

Shortly into his tenure as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara announced a crackdown on insider trading, indicating that it would be his office’s “top criminal priority” and that investigations would utilize novel and “covert methods” to achieve convictions, including using wiretaps and informants.  According to Bharara, “every legitimate tool should be at our disposal.”  Over the next several years, federal prosecutors in Manhattan initiated nearly 100 insider trading cases against some of Wall Street’s leading names, and secured more than 80 convictions, many through guilty pleas.  For his work, Time magazine featured Bharara on its February 13, 2012 cover under the headline: “This Man is Busting Wall Street.”

READ MORE

Merrill Lynch v. Manning: SCOTUS to Decide Scope of Federal Jurisdiction in Certain Securities Cases

On December 1, 2015, the Supreme Court heard argument in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning.  In that case, the Court will resolve the split in the Circuits as to whether Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the ’34 Act”) provides federal jurisdiction over claims that are asserted under state law but are based on violations of regulations adopted under the ’34 Act.

READ MORE

The Boss Makes HOW much more than me? SEC Issues Final Pay Ratio Rule

On August 5, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved its final rule subjecting most public companies to the so-called “Pay Ratio Disclosure” mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The SEC voted 3-2 to approve the measure, with the panel’s two Republican members opposing it.  In the split vote, the SEC finally put into place one of the most controversial rules mandated by Dodd-Frank.  In the years since the SEC began working on the rule, it has attracted an intense measure of both public scrutiny and advocacy, drawing more than 286,000 public comments.

READ MORE

Is Your Confidentiality Agreement a Ticking Time Bomb? SEC’s First Action Over Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections Targets Company’s Internal Investigations

For the first time in the nearly five years since Dodd-Frank went into effect, the SEC last week took action against a company over concerns that the company was preventing its employees from potentially blowing the whistle on illegal activity.  The action is significant because the SEC was targeting seemingly innocuous language in a confidentiality agreement and there were no allegations that the company, KBR, Inc., was otherwise breaking the law.

READ MORE

On a Roll: The SEC Continues to Deliver on its Promise to Seek Admissions of Wrongdoing

The SEC announced last week that it has obtained yet another admission of wrongdoing in connection with an agreement to settle an SEC enforcement action.  This time, Peter A. Jenson, the former COO of Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, admitted that he aided and abetted Harbinger’s CEO, Philip Falcone, in obtaining a fraudulent loan from Harbinger.  Jenson agreed to a $200,000 penalty along with a two-year suspension from practicing as an accountant on behalf of any SEC-regulated entity.  The settlement awaits court approval.

The Jenson settlement is the latest in a series of settlements in which the SEC has obtained admissions of wrongdoing since announcing changes to its “no admit/no deny” settlement policy in June 2013. Other examples include the March 2014 Lions Gate settlement, the February 2014 Scottrade settlement, and the August 2013 Falcone/Harbinger settlement that settled charges related to those Jenson settled last week.    READ MORE

You Better Forum-Shop Around . . . While You Still Can

Matrix

On January 31, 2014, Chevron Corporation moved to certify to the Delaware Supreme Court the question of whether exclusive forum bylaws are valid under Delaware law.  Chevron filed its motion before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California.  If Judge Tigar certifies the question, it seems likely that the Delaware Supreme Court will affirm a recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision finding such bylaws to be valid under statutory and contractual law, given that the author of that decision, then-Chancellor Leo E. Strine, is now Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court.

In 2013, plaintiffs filed suit in both the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Northern District of California challenging Chevron’s board-adopted forum exclusivity bylaw.  The case in the Northern District was stayed pending the outcome of the Delaware case, since both involved questions of Delaware state law.  The Delaware plaintiffs argued that the forum exclusivity bylaw was statutorily invalid under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), and contractually invalid because it was adopted unilaterally without shareholder consent.  In June 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery – in a decision by then-Chancellor Strine – found that the bylaw was enforceable, and that the Delaware Court of Chancery should be the sole and exclusive forum for (1)any derivative action brought on behalf of the Corporation, (2) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty, (3) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, or (4) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. READ MORE

News of the (Shareholder Derivative) World: Record-High $139 Million Settlement in News Corp. Phone Hacking Suit

Stack of Money

Putting an end to shareholder derivative litigation arising from News Corp.’s phone-hacking scandal, the company’s directors agreed last week to a record-breaking $139 million cash settlement. According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the deal is the “largest cash derivative settlement on record.” The settlement will be funded by directors’ and officers’ insurance proceeds.

Plaintiffs initially filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery in March 2011, asserting claims based on the company’s proposed acquisition (since completed) of Shine Group Ltd., a television and movie production company owned by the daughter of News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch. According to plaintiffs, the News Corp. directors breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the purchase of Shine at an excessive price. The court later consolidated various related cases, and plaintiffs’ allegations expanded to include claims that the company’s directors failed to properly investigate the UK phone-hacking allegations that led to the demise of News Corp.’s News of the World. READ MORE