Overview
Timothy D. Reynolds is Of Counsel in the Litigation Department of Paul Hastings and is a member of the Securities Litigation group based in the firm's Los Angeles office.
Tim is a trial and appellate attorney who handles complex civil litigation matters in state and federal courts. Tim's practice focuses on securities litigation matters, corporate governance and ownership disputes, shareholder activism defense and other high-stakes business disputes.
Tim is a seasoned securities litigator who regularly represents public companies, as well as individual officers and directors, in securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions and individual investor disputes brought under federal and state securities laws. In addition, Tim has extensive experience representing public companies and their boards of directors in litigation involving shareholder activists, high-profile proxy contests and contentious litigation involving corporate control and governance. Tim regularly practices before the Delaware Court of Chancery, including in expedited matters of significant consequence to the public company and its board of directors.
Timy also regularly advises clients in connection with internal and independent board committee investigations and in response to government enforcement agency subpoenas and shareholder demand letters.
In addition, Tim represents institutional real estate companies and capital providers in joint venture and real property development disputes, with particular expertise in litigating disputes involving hospitality and leisure transactions and operations.
Tim received his J.D. from Emory University School of Law in 2010. He received his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2005.
Recognitions
- The Legal 500, Recommended for M&A Litigation: Defense
Representations
- An alternative investment management company in a breach of contract action involving disposition of numerous hotel assets resulting in complete trial victory and attorney fee award.
- A biopharmaceutical company in a securities class action in the Southern District of California and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- A financial services company in connection with a governance and ownership dispute in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- A Web3 gaming company in an expedited matter in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- A private real estate development company in connection with fraud claims and business torts made by purchasers of condominium units.
- An international real estate investment trust in connection with litigation involving its portfolio of hotel assets and lease agreements.
- A real estate investment company in connection with a transient occupancy tax dispute with municipality.
- A biotechnology company in a breach of contract dispute concerning a multi-billion-dollar product in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- An e-commerce company in a contract and fraud dispute brought by one of the company’s founders in which the founder sought to rescind intellectual property assigned to the company.
- A California life sciences company in connection with fraud and business tort claims under California law.
- A former executive officer of a publicly traded company in connection with a four-year SEC investigation into insider trading, which resulted in no charges being brought against the executive officer.
- A California biotechnology company in a shareholder derivative action in federal court involving allegations of improper stock option grants to senior executives and directors, resulting in favorable non-monetary settlement.
- A special committee for the board of directors of a publicly traded company in an internal investigation regarding allegations of executive misconduct and violations of the federal securities laws.
- A Fortune 50 company in a shareholder derivative action concerning allegations of excessive executive compensation, resulting in voluntary dismissal of the complaint.
- A trust and its board of trustees in an SEC investigation concerning allegations of untrue statements made in violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which resulted in a decision by the SEC not to pursue any charges.
- A registered investment advisor in connection with an SEC enforcement action concerning allegations of untrue statements to an advisory client in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 206 of the Advisers Act, which resulted in an advantageous early settlement.
Engagement & Publications
- Panelist, “Conducting Virtual Bench Trials”, Los Angeles County Bar Association, January 2021
- Speaker, "Where Do We Go From Here?", Paul Hastings LLP Hospitality and Leisure Webinar Series, June 2020
- Author, “Ninth Circuit Affirms: SLUSA Does Not Provide Independent Basis for Federal Question Jurisdiction,” Lexology, January 2017
- Author,“Salman v. United States: The Supreme Court Opts for Narrow Ruling Instead of Clarity,” Bloomberg BNA, December 2016
- Author, “Ninth Circuit Muddies Loss Causation,” Law360, February 2016
- Author, “The Supreme Court Again Extends the Preemptive Effect of the Federal Arbitration Act,” Paul Hastings Insights, December 2015
- Author, “Ninth Circuit Clarifies Application of ‘Adverse Interest Exception’ in Securities Class Actions,” Paul Hastings Insights, November 2015
- Author, “California Derivative Plaintiffs Can't Dodge Delaware Law,” Law360, November 2014
- Author, “Three Years On: Lessons From ‘Say on Pay’ Shareholder Litigation,” Inside Counsel, December 2013
- Author, “2nd Circuit Declines to Extend American Pipe Tolling to Section 13 Statute of Repose,” Westlaw Journal, October 2013
- Author, “Searching for an Efficient Market with CrossListed Securities: Denial of Class Certification in Deutsche Bank Illustrates Increased Scrutiny of the Fraud on the Market Doctrine,” Paul Hastings Insights, October 2013
- Author, “The ‘Fraud-on-the-Market’ Presumption of Reliance Revisited: Supreme Court Declines to Require Proof of Materiality at Class Certification Stage,” Paul Hastings Insights, May 2013
- Author, “Staying in Front of Shareholder Litigation Challenges to Executive Compensation,” The Corporate Governance Advisor, June 2012