Skip to main content

Joel D. Rothman

Special Counsel



Joel practices as Special Counsel at Mintz in the Litigation Section, with a particular focus on litigation that creates recovery opportunities for institutional investors, as well as real estate litigation and insurance matters. As a key member of the Institutional Class Action Recovery Practice, Joel advises institutional investors with respect to the monitoring and evaluation of both foreign and domestic securities and antitrust class actions, and has helped collect over $8 billion for institutional clients. He has represented various clients in evaluating whether to opt out of or object to class settlements throughout the world. Joel, along with the rest of the Institutional Class Action Recovery Practice, represents mutual funds, institutional investors, public pension funds, trusts, investment advisors, and individuals as claimants in thousands of cases, both foreign and domestic, handling approximately 350 cases concurrently, with up to several million dollars in recoveries per week.  

A well-rounded attorney, in addition to his work with institutional investors, Joel has an active real estate litigation practice, representing developers, property owners, and financing agencies, particularly with respect to land use litigation and permitting disputes. Joel has expertise in real estate disputes involving municipal zoning board hearings and decisions, zoning appeals, and Chapter 40B affordable housing issues. A seasoned litigator, he advises clients at all stages of civil litigation, from pre-litigation counseling and investigation through discovery, alternative dispute resolution, trial, and the appeals process.

Joel also has extensive experience representing primary and excess insurers and reinsurers in complex coverage disputes arising under representations and warranties and commercial general liability policies.

Before joining the firm, Joel held a clerkship position with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, serving under, the late Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants. He has also held internship positions in the litigation sections of law firms in Boston, and in the Insurance and Financial Services Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.


  • Northeastern University (JD)
  • Wesleyan University (BA, Government)


Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery

  • Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating in virtually all U.S. securities class actions, regulatory settlements, and other investor class actions.
  • Represented institutional investors in monitoring and/or participating as opt-out claimants or parties in antitrust and securities class actions involving interest rate and currency manipulation claims.
  • Represented mutual funds and other institutional investors in evaluating and participating in global recovery opportunities, including securities and antitrust cases in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, England, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa and Taiwan.

Real Estate

  • Obtained dismissal of lawsuit brought by a municipality challenging a funding agency’s determination of eligibility for a Comprehensive Permit.
  • Successfully appealed to the DHCD a municipality’s determination that it had achieved an affordable housing statutory minimum.
  • Represented clients in front of local zoning boards in Massachusetts land zone proceedings.


  • Defended an insurer against claims that it converted subrogation claims, obtaining summary judgment from the US District Court for the District of Oregon.
  • Represented clients in evaluating coverage disputes under representation and warranties and general commercial liability policies.


  • Former Member, Board of Trustees & General Counsel, Infant Toddler Children’s Center in Acton, Massachusetts
  • Former Member, Board of Trustees, Concord Children's Center in Concord, Massachusetts

Recent Insights

News & Press


Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail

Court Finds Proposed Opt Out Provisions to Be Too Burdensome

October 13, 2021 | Blog | By Joel Rothman, Sofia Nuño

On September 15, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order regarding a burdensome opt out provision in SEB Investment Management AB v. Symantec Corp. Presumably to make it easier for the parties to track a blow-up provision in the settlement, the proposed class settlement notice provided that investors wishing to opt out supply, among other things, holdings and transaction details.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
In a scathing decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Court denied class certification of the Allergan securities class action (“Allergan”). See In re Allergan PLC Sec. Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179371 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 29, 2020).
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
The August 20, 2020 decision in In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“the Opinion”), dismissing a significant portion of the SEC’s federal securities claims against Volkswagen as having been previously released by the DOJ, serves as an important reminder for why such coordination is important and how defendants may take advantage of the failure to coordinate, as did Volkswagen.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) will soon be presented the opportunity to address the novel question of whether investors who purchase a security in the context of a direct listing, rather than an initial public offering (“IPO”), have standing to bring claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, despite the fact that such investors cannot allege that they purchased shares registered under and traceable to a defective registration statement.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
In ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the FX Opt-Outs Action, Judge Schofield narrowed the antitrust claims, denied dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens, and denied dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.
Read more
Mergers & Acquisitions Viewpoints Thumbnail Image
As parties to merger or acquisition agreements carefully review their agreements to see what, if any, impacts the COVID-19 pandemic may have, the recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Newmont Mining Corp. v. AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. provides meaningful guidance for the interpretation of Material Adverse Effect (“MAE”) provisions in agreements governed by New York law.
Read more
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery IICAR Viewpoints Thumbnail
Recently, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) filed in the Toshiba securities litigation. As we previously wrote, in 2016, the district court dismissed the case, holding both that transactions in Toshiba’s unsponsored American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) are not “domestic” transactions as required by Morrison, and also that the plaintiffs’ Japanese law claims must be dismissed due to comity concerns and on forum non conveniens grounds. (link to prior blog). Then, in 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that Toshiba ADR trades are domestic, and allowed the defendants to file the Amended Complaint asserting more specific allegations about Toshiba’s connection to the ADR trades. (link to blog on 9th Circuit opinion).
Read more

News & Press

This Law360 Expert Analysis column, authored by Mintz Member Peter Saparoff and Associate Joel Rothman, discusses several recent developments which highlight why foreign securities litigation is an ever-changing scenario where nothing is definite.
Mintz is proud to be recognized by JD Supra in its 2018 Reader’s Choice awards. The annual program highlights the most widely read authors and articles throughout the past year. Five Mintz attorneys were named JD Supra Top Authors in four different industries.
Mintz Members Peter Saparoff and Adam Sisitsky, and Associate Joel Rothman co-authored the book Business Torts in Massachusetts, which provides a comprehensive and practical guide for business counsel and litigators on the wide range of "business torts" actions.
This article, co-authored by Mintz Litigation Member Joel Rothman and attorney Angela Dilenno, discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing of a case dealing with a relatively straightforward issue in the generally complex world of securities litigation.
Peter Saparoff, Co-chair of Mintz’s Securities Litigation Practice, and Joel Rothman, Mintz Boston Associate, authored this American Bar Association article discussing whether securities antitrust cases will incite an increase in objections because of the complexity of their distribution plans.
Members Peter Saparoff and Robert Kidwell and Associates Joel Rothman and Kevin Mortimer authored this ABA’s Section of Litigation column on the trend of plaintiff investors filing a growing number of class action cases against financial institutions alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws.