Our Firm

Purcell & Lefkowitz LLP is dedicated to fighting corporate misconduct, protecting the rights of shareholders, and holding officers and directors of publicly-traded companies accountable for wrongful actions. Our lawyers have a proven track record of success in obtaining millions of dollars in recoveries for companies and shareholders and securing far-reaching corporate reforms designed to prevent future misconduct.

Our firm combines the experience, skills, and sophistication of a large law firm with a level of focused attention to our clients’ needs that only a boutique firm can consistently provide. We take pride in our unique ability to uncover many forms of corporate misconduct and to prosecute cases on behalf of the shareholders who have been harmed by it. The trust our clients place in us to fight for their rights fuels our passion and dedication to our work. If you are a shareholder and believe you have been injured by corporate wrongdoing, please contact us to discuss how we can help. We have substantial experience in handling a wide variety of shareholder litigation, including cases involving:

Breach of fiduciary duty

Corporate insiders owe shareholders a duty of loyalty, honesty and good faith. A breach of this duty can harm investors in a variety of ways, including financial loss and dilution of voting power. We work to ensure that officers and directors act with integrity and fairness, and seek to hold them accountable when they have not.

Fraud

Fraud often involves false and misleading statements about the company and its operations, which can lead to substantial monetary losses for shareholders. But corporate fraud can take many different and less obvious forms as well – We have the experience and skills to recognize these schemes and help defrauded shareholders obtain remedies.

Insider trading

Where corporate insiders have abused their position by profiting from their special access to confidential information belonging to the corporation, we work to hold them accountable for these improper trades and to see that they give back their wrongful trading profits.

Conflicted transactions

Insiders and controlling shareholders may attempt to abuse their power by transferring assets at unfair prices or otherwise extracting special benefits at the expense of other shareholders. We carefully monitor these transactions and take action when we find that wrongdoing has occurred.

Corporate waste

Shareholders have a right to see that corporate assets are used to the company’s benefit and not squandered or wrongfully depleted. We help make sure this right is respected.

Our lawyers have recently worked on cases resulting in the following successful outcomes:

In re Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Litig. (Del. 2026)

  • Challenged and after four years of litigation obtained cancellation of 23 million stock options that company’s directors issued to themselves as so-called “true-up” to offset dilution inflicted on all stockholders by company’s financing activities, while also recovering $2.25 million in cash for company to use in funding its operations without further diluting stockholders.

Dodge v. Microstrategy Incorporated et al. (Del. 2026)

  • Challenged and obtained binding stockholder ratification vote on amendments to corporate charter improperly effected through changes to terms of preferred stock made without approval of common stockholders.

In re Newmark Group, Inc. Derivative Litig. (Del. 2025)

  • Challenged and obtained for the company complete recovery of a $50 million cash “bonus” improperly awarded to company’s controlling stockholder by conflicted and beholden directors.

Solak v. Archer Aviation Inc. (Del. 2024)

  • Achieved invalidation of amendment to company’s charter exculpating company’s executives from personal liability for certain breaches of fiduciary duty that had been improperly implemented by company without required stockholder approval.

Garfield v. Allen et al. (The ODP Corporation) (Del. 2023)

  • Successfully pled “a novel theory” of bad faith by company’s directors and obtained “a fine settlement” for company’s stockholders by achieving cancellation of roughly $5 million in equity awards granted to company’s CEO in violation of stockholder-approved compensation plan.

Garfield v. Boxed, Inc. (Del. 2022)

  • Successfully challenged unlawful attempt by company to close merger and increase its outstanding stock by over 200 million shares without providing public stockholders with a separate class vote on transactions, which “disable[d] a corporate landmine,” and took company “off a path that violated the DGCL and the stockholder franchise.”

Zalvin v. Aguiar et al. (BridgeBio Pharma, Inc.) (Del. 2022)

  • Successfully challenged extravagant director compensation policy pursuant to which directors granted themselves excessive annual compensation and achieved over 50% reduction in director pay that saved company $35 million over four-year term.

Patel v. Drahi et al. (Altice USA Inc.) (Del. 2022)

  • Challenged and recovered for company roughly $26 million of stock awards issued by conflicrted board to controlling stockholder for unspecified “strategic and advisory services.”

Alpha Ventures Capital Partners LP et al. v. Pourhassan et al. (CytoDyn, Inc.) (Del. 2021)

  • Challenged and secured the forfeiture and surrender of nearly $50 million of equity awards that CytoDyn’s directors granted to themselves; the settlement also achieved transformational corporate governance reforms designed to prevent recurrence of what the Delaware Court of Chancery described as the “egregious conduct . . . that was uncovered through this litigation.”

Willcox v. Dolan et al. (The Madison Square Garden Company) (Del. 2020)

  • Challenged compensation awarded to CEO and achieved a settlement in which CEO surrendered stock awards valued at over $30 million. In approving the settlement, the Delaware Court of Chancery lauded the settlement as an “excellent” result for the company and its stockholders.

Pascal v. Czerwinski et al. (Columbia Financial, Inc.) (Del. 2020)

  • Challenged one-time special equity grants company’s directors awarded to themselves in connection with company’s conversion into public company, and after substantial litigation, secured company’s agreement to put challenged awards to a fully-informed and binding stockholder vote, a result the court applauded as a “very elegant settlement.”

In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (Del. 2019)

  • Challenged a transaction in which directors awarded themselves over $50 million in stock and obtained a 75% rescission of those awards, an outcome that the court lauded as a “recovery [of] significant value that was wrongfully diverted from the company” and an “excellent result” for stockholders; this victory followed three years of hard-fought litigation, including a successful appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court that produced a landmark ruling in the law applicable to director self-dealing.

In re Salesforce.com, Inc. Derivative Litig. (Del. 2019)

  • Challenged director self-compensation program in which directors consistently awarded themselves above-market compensation and achieved settlement providing for a five-year reduction in director compensation expenses, valued at a $10 million savings for company.

Laidlaw v. Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. 2018)

  • After extensive litigation in action challenging self-interested payments to directors and officers of a reorganized bank, recovered $4.6 million in cash and stock for the benefit of the bank and its stockholders.

Chitwood v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2017)

  • Following a bench trial in the Superior Court under the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, obtained a unanimous ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which provided a stockholder access to corporate records for the purpose of investigating insider trading.

In re Google Inc. Class C Shareholder Litigation (Del. Ch. 2013)

  • Challenged a novel stock recapitalization transaction that created a new class of nonvoting shares and strengthened the corporate control of the Google founders. On the eve of trial, secured an agreement that provided a payment of $552 million in stock to holders of the nonvoting stock, and provided enhanced board of director scrutiny of the Google founders’ ability to transfer stock, including the implementation of a new procedure for a waiver or modification of the founders’ ability to trade control of the company amongst themselves.

 Pfeiffer v. Toll (Toll Brothers Inc.) (Del. Ch. 2013)

  • After extensive discovery, achieved a settlement returning $16.25 million in cash to the company, including significant contributions from corporate insiders who traded stock while in possession of material non-public information.

Kleba v. Dees (Provectus Biopharmaceuticals) (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Knox Cnty. 2014)

  • Recovered approximately $9 million in excess compensation given to insiders and caused the cancellation of millions of shares of stock options issued in violation of a shareholder-approved compensation plan. Also obtained adoption of improved corporate governance procedures and controls relating to the compensation of the company’s officers and directors.

Mor v. Collis (AmerisourceBergen Corp.) (D. Del. 2013)

  • Obtained recovery of stock option awards worth more than $5 million improperly granted to CEO, and new corporate controls designed to improve company’s compensation practices.