James E. Farnham

  • Richmond
More than 36 years of trial work in a variety of substantive areas, including more than 40 significant jury trials tried to verdict. Current practice focuses on commercial litigation and arbitration of all types, with particular emphasis in the areas of financial services, securities, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, business torts and class actions.

Relevant Experience

  • Handled hundreds of significant cases for Fortune 500 companies, as both plaintiff and defendant, including defense of class actions, in more than a dozen states.
  • Numerous representations before arbitration panels of AAA, NASD and NYSE and before a wide variety of state and federal agencies.
  • Successfully defended Bank Holding Company, Broker/Dealer Subsidiary and individual registered representative, in four week jury trial, against claims under RICO, Federal and State securities laws, and a variety of common law courts, seeking $60 million in damages for losses in securities transactions.
  • Successfully defended allegations of securities fraud, through six week jury trial and appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, where co-defendant, who had admitted liability, was the star witness for plaintiffs in alleging that our client participated in the fraud.
  • Represented several different defendants in five states defending allegations of federal securities law violations and related pendant claims, arising out of the issuance and sale of a variety of CMO and CMO derivative products.
  • Represented Fortune 500 corporation in Delaware Chancery Court trial resulting in court’s invalidation, under Unocal and Blasius standards, of By-Law amendments adopted by defendants in response to an unsolicited consent solicitation.
  • Represented defendant tender offerors in defense of putative class action brought by Milberg, Weiss alleging violations of the Williams Act and the best practice rule. The suit challenged the legality of retention bonuses being paid to certain of the target’s executives after completion of tender offer. Plaintiffs alleged that the bonus payments should be treated as additional compensation for the executives’ stock holdings and therefore violated the best price provisions of the Williams Act requiring equal compensation to all shareholders. The trial court granted defendants’motion to dismiss. Milberg, Weiss withdrew its appeal, with prejudice, prior to oral argument.
  • Worked with dozens of clients in hundreds of cases to develop and implement successful strategies for disposing of litigation short of trial, including mediation and other forms of ADR.