David Priebe’s memorial: After David Priebe, a partner at DLA Piper LLP, passed away tragically, the whole Silicon Valley community is in sorrow. David’s family has reported that he unfortunately departed away this week. David Priebe passed away after a medical crisis. Many in the corporate governance field looked up to David, who was a highly recognized individual. With over 30 years of expertise fighting securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation, as well as providing advice on shareholder and founders’ conflicts, he was a ferocious governance litigator.
Who was David Priebe
With over thirty years of expertise defending clients in shareholder derivative cases, securities class actions, and conflicts between founders and shareholders, Dr. David Priebe practised corporate governance law. As a result of his interest in novel concepts and approaches, David runs the website 10b-5.com, which has articles on securities law and corporate governance. David has spoken at many professional seminars and presentations on these subjects, including Rule 10b5-1(c) stock trading strategies, since joining DLA Piper in 2001.
David handled the majority of the legal work for gratis in the 1983 civil rights lawsuit Simpson v. Nack (N.D. Cal. 2010). The jury returned a verdict against one defendant and in favor of our client. After then, the matter was resolved. In addition, David practices law for the largest cycling club in Silicon Valley, the Almaden Cycling and Touring Club. Regarding securities laws, insider trading, derivative lawsuits, and record-keeping procedures, David authored several books and blog entries.
David Priebe Honors
won an unusual decision that prevented the class from forming by refuting the price effect hypothesis after the partial dismissal of a securities class action brought against a tech corporation. WL 2247750 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2019) is the case number for this instance, whereas WL 6026244 is the case number for the year 2017. Won an interlocutory appeal for the same reason, causing the class certification in In re Allstate Corp. Sec. Litig., 966 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2020), to be thrown out. Later, the Goldman Sachs decision by the Supreme Court in 2021 altered the regulations on class certification by drawing on some of the ruling’s findings.
represented Countrywide Financial Corporation’s former CFO in many class action, institutional, and regulatory lawsuits pertaining to common stock and mortgage-backed securities. won the first move to dismiss, stating that shelf registration statement signers are not liable for purportedly misleading assertions made in subsequent prospectus supplements under Securities Act Section 11. 932 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2013) is the case number. In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litig is the name of the case. Due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, the state court that prevailed seeks to dismiss the case.
Summary judgment based on statute of repose for Exchange Act claims was granted in New Mexico State Investment Council v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (Santa Fe County, N.M., 1st Jud. Dist. Apr. 14, 2009); in United Western Bank vs. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. 2010CV3325 (Dist. Ct. Colo., City and County of Denver, 2d Jud. Dist. Nov. 9, 2010). SRM Global Fund Ltd. Partnership v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2010 WL 2473595 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2010), sustained, 2011 WL 5867052 (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), a petition to dismiss a major investor complaint; Footbridge Ltd. Trust v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 10 Civ. 367 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011).
obtained the first ruling to use a Rule 10b5-1(c) stock trading strategy to demonstrate that there was no scienter in a private securities matter, leading to the denial of a securities class action. Wietschner v. Monterey Pasta Co., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
employed inventive legal and factual arguments to win many trials for a regional bank accused of theft concerning a customer’s savings. Due to the following cases: Bridges v. Geringer, 2015 WL 2438227 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015), where the claim was dismissed for lack of 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), where the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act applied to a private fund that made investments in public companies; Strudley v. Santa Cruz County Bank, 2017 WL 4355129 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017), aff’d (9th Cir.
successfully obtained the dismissal of derivative claims brought against a gaming-based entertainment firm on the grounds that the plaintiff had not shown contemporaneous ownership, which had not been a problem when the shareholder had allegedly issued the corporation a demand. A-16-739547-B (Dist. Ct., Clark County, Nevada, Jan. 4, 2017); Sokolowski v. Adelson, No. A-16-739191 (D. Nev. July 30, 2014), 2015 WL 3821349 (D. Nev. June 19, 2015).
defeated an order preventing a military contractor from selling technology, and after the transaction was completed, they prevailed in motions to dismiss based on a novel argument that the case qualified as derivative under California law. Jarackas v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc. is a case filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of California with case number 1:11 CV 191643.
Education of David Priebe
David completed his J.D. at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 1990, the Order of the Coif at Yale University in 1983, his B.A. at the State University of New York at Albany in 1981, and he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa PRO BONO.
