Death Notice for David Priebe: David Priebe, a partner at DLA Piper LLP, passed away in a horrific accident, and the whole Silicon Valley community is in sorrow over his passing. According to his relatives, David is said to have departed suddenly in a sad manner this week. As a result of a medical emergency, David Priebe passed away. David was a highly regarded individual in the field of corporate governance, and many people looked up to him as a role model. He had more than thirty years of expertise defending securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation, as well as providing advice on shareholder and founders’ issues. He was a ferocious governance litigator.
Exactly who was David Priebe?
Dr. David Priebe was a corporate governance attorney who had more than thirty years of expertise defending clients in securities class actions, shareholder derivative cases, and conflicts between shareholders and founders. He was also a member of the American Bar Association. With the intention of pursuing his interest in novel concepts and policies, David is the proprietor of a website known as 10b-5.com, which features articles on the subject of securities legislation and governance. David has been a speaker at a number of professional seminars and presentations on these subjects ever since he started working at DLA Piper in 2001. Some of the topics he has discussed include Rule 10b5-1(c) stock trading plans.
David served as the primary attorney in the civil rights case Simpson v. Nack (N.D. Cal. 2010), which he handled without charging himself for his services. The findings of the jury were favorable to our client and unfavorable to one of the defendants. After then, the dispute was resolved. In addition to that, David is employed as a lawyer by the Almaden Cycling and Touring Club, which is the most prominent cycling club in the vicinity of Silicon Valley. David has written a significant number of books and blog articles on a variety of topics, including securities legislation, insider trading, derivative cases, and rules for record keeping.
Priebe Awards, David Award
A securities class action lawsuit filed against a technology corporation was partly dismissed, and the plaintiffs successfully argued against the price effect argument, which resulted in an unusual finding that prevented the class from being formed. When it comes to this particular case, the case number is WL 2247750 (North Dakota, California, May 24, 2019), and the case number for the year 2017 is WL 6026244. In the case of In re Allstate Corp. Sec. Litig., 966 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2020), the plaintiffs prevailed in an interlocutory appeal that resulted in the certification of the class being overturned. After then, several aspects of the verdict were used in the decision that the Supreme Court made in 2021 about Goldman Sachs, which altered the regulations for class certification.
A variety of class action, institutional, and regulatory claims involving mortgage-backed securities and common stock were brought against the former chief financial officer of Countrywide Financial Corporation. These cases were defended by the attorney. The first motion to dismiss was successful, and it said that individuals who sign shelf registration statements are not legally accountable under Securities Act Section 11 for allegedly misleading assertions that are included in subsequent prospectus supplements. A case with the number 932 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2013) has been entered. In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litigation is the names of the cases involved. Won’s state court makes a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it does not have personal jurisdiction.
The cases in question were New Mexico State Investment Council vs. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (Santa Fe County, New Mexico, 1st Jud. Dist. April 14, 2009); United Western Bank vs. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. 2010CV3325 (Dist. Ct. Colorado, City and County of Denver, 2d Jud. Dist. November 9, 2010); and summary judgment based on statute of repose for Exchange Act claims. Footbridge Ltd. Trust v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 10 Civ. 367 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. March 16, 2011); and SRM Global Fund Ltd. Partnership v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2010 WL 2473595 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2010), which was affirmed, 2011 WL 5867052 (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), a request to dismiss a major investor lawsuit. Both of these cases were heard on November 23, 2011.
By obtaining the first decision to utilize a Rule 10b5-1(c) stock trading strategy to demonstrate that there was no scienter in a private securities case, we were able to win the rejection of a securities class action lawsuit. The case of Wietschner v. Monterey Pasta Company was decided in the Northern District of California in 2003.
By using inventive legal and factual arguments, I was able to win multiple instances on behalf of a regional bank that was accused of stealing investments belonging to a client. As a result of Bridges v. Geringer, 2015 WL 2438227 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (the claim was thrown out because it did not involve interstate commerce), Bridges v. Santa Cruz County Bank, No. CV 181834 (Superior Ct. Santa Cruz Cty. Apr. 20, 2016), aff’d, (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Dec. 29, 2017) (the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act applied to a private fund that invested in public companies); Strudley v. Santa Cruz County Bank, 2017 WL 4355129 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017), aff’d (9th Cir.
The plaintiff failed to show contemporaneous ownership, which was not an issue when the shareholder issued a purported demand to the business. As a result, the derivative actions that were brought against a gaming-based entertainment firm were successfully thrown out. Sokolowski v. Adelson, No. A-16-739547-B (Dist. Ct., Clark County Nevada January 4, 2017); 2014 WL 3748191 (in the District of Nevada on July 30, 2014); 2015 WL 3821349 (in the District of Nevada on June 19, 2015).
A novel notion that the case was derivative under California law was used to successfully defeat an injunction that was issued against the sale of technology by a military contractor. This was followed by the successful dismissal of motions to dismiss after the transaction had been completed. Jarackas v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc. is the case that is now being heard in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, with the number 1:11 CV 191643.
The Education of David Priebe
David received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 1990, was a member of Phi Beta Kappa PRO BONO, received his Master of Philosophy degree in Political Science from Yale University in 1983, and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Mathematics from the State University of New York in Albany in 1981.
