Attorneys | Fred Isquith | Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

New York
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016

Phone:	212-545-4690
Fax:	212-545-4653
Email:	isquith@whafh.com

Fred Taylor Isquith: admitted: New York; District of Columbia; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Eighth Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York, District of Arizona, District of Colorado, Northern and Central District of Illinois, Western District of Michigan and District of Nebraska.

Education: Columbia University (J.D., 1971); City University of New York (Brooklyn) (B.A., 1968).

Publications: "Another Look At Amgen" Law360, New York (April 05, 2013) "How Not To Plead A Multistate Class Action"
Law 360, (March, 2013) "Supreme Court Spotlight: Sex, Race...And Commerce" (January 10, 2013);"Rule 23 'Preliminary' Requirement As Seen By 7th Circ."(December 21, 2012); "Exhaustion — Patent And Copyright And The Supreme Court" (November 20, 2012); "Case Study: In Re AIG Securities Litigation" (October 2, 2012);"Case Study: Rosado V. China North East Petroleum" (September 13, 2012); "A Dissection Of Rule 23"(August 1, 2012); "A 2nd Look At Class Action Requirements" (July 23, 2012) “The Continued Robustness Of Rule 23(b)(2)” (Law 360, June 2012); “The Simmons Case (§16 Ruling) In The Litigation Context” (Law 360, May 2012); “A Look At Litigated And Settled Class Certification” (Law 360, April 2012); “Concepcion Commands a Case-by-Case Analysis” (Law 360, March 2012); “Dec. 20, 2011 - 3 Big Decisions” (Law 360, February 2012); “Case Study: Damasco v. Clearwire” (Law 360, January 2012); “Redefining Loss Causation In Mutual Fund Cases” (Law 360, December 2011); “The Delaware Chancery Court as Corporate Regulator” (Law 360, November 2011); “Case Study: Atkinson V. Morgan Asset Management” (Law 360, October 2011); “2 Months After Dukes . . .” (Law 360, September 2011); “Interpretation of Arbitration Provision Post-Concepcion” (Law 360, August 2011); “In Context: Recent Class Action Jurisprudence” (Law 360, July 2011); “SLUSA and State Court Securities Actions” (Law 360, June 2011); “Addressing Multiforum Deal Litigation” (Law 360, May 2011); “Is It Material? Depends On Who You Ask” (Law 360, April 2011); “In re Bear Stearns — 1 Concealment, 3 Results” (Law 360, March 2011); “Interlocutory Appeals and Twombly In 7th Circ.” (Law 360, February 2011); “Does Securities Enforcement Make Corps. Stronger?” (Law 360, January 2011); “The End of Class Actions? Not Likely” (Law 360, December 2010); “Interpreting Morrison v. National Australia Bank” (Law 360, November 2010); “5 Cases Impacting Investors in Public Cos.” (Law 360: September 2010); “Del Opinion to Inform Future Freeze Out Mergers” (Law 360: August 2010); “Case Study of Morrison v. National Australia Bank” (Law 360: July 2010); “Citizens United: A Congressional Opportunity”; Law 360 Securities. Law 360 Com (2010); “Spring Supreme Court Roundup.” (Law 360 Securities; June 9, 2010); “Clarifying Jurisdiction for Foreign Claimants,” Law 360 (May 18, 2010); Within the SEC (Securities Law 360, April 15, 2010); “A Third and Fourth Look at the Bank of America Opinion.” Securities Law 360 (October 23, 2009); Guest Column: “New Ruling on Rating Agencies Responsibilities Bears Close Scrutiny.” Securities Docket (September 18, 2009); “An SEC Monopoly Will Not Work” (Institutional Investors Services, 2007); “A Flexible Approach to Loss Causation” (2005); “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Tort Reform” (2004, SRI); “Ethics Going Astray By Small Steps” (2004); “The Seven Year Itch” (2003); “A Scalpel in Your Hand: Litigation as a Tool” (2002, SRI); “Anatomy of a Deposition . . . Complex Financial Case” (2002, NYC Bar); Federal Civil Practice Supplement, “Representative Actions,” (NYSBA, 2000); “Post Arbitration Remedies,” for an Introduction to Securities Arbitration (NYSBA, 1994); “A Plaintiff’s Lawyer Examines Limited Partnership Roll‐ups for Real Estate Exit Strategies” (American Conference Institute, 1994); Editor and columnist for The Class Act, the weekly publication of the National Association of Shareholders and Consumer Attorneys.

Lecturer: Class Certification Under Rule 23 - Risks and Benefits; Touro Law School (2011). The Federal Pleading Standards after Twombly; Touro Law School (2010). Panelist with the Antitrust Committee of the New York City Bar Association Regarding Private Equity Transactions and the Implications of the Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions (2008); Developments in Class Actions; (NYSBA, 2007); IPO Tie In/Claims Seminar, Professional Liability Underwriter Society; Securities Arbitration New York State Bar Association; Real Estate Exit Strategies, American Conference Institute; Fundamental Strategies in Securities Litigation (NYSBA, CLE Program). He is an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association and with the Civil Court of the City of New York and a mediator for the ADR Program of the Supreme Court, County of New York; Complex Litigation Panel.

Member: President’s Committee on Access to Justice (2010); Committee on Evidence (2007 ‐ ); Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, 1989‐ ); Committees on Legislation and Federal Courts, 1984‐1988), Committee on Securities, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Committee on Federal Courts; Committee on Antitrust); New York County Lawyers’ Association (Former Chair: Business Tort/Consumer Fraud‐Tort Law Section); Brooklyn (Member: Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules, 1983‐1987; New York State (Member: Committee on Legislation, Trial Lawyers Section, 1981‐ ); and American (Member: Sections on: Litigation; International Law; Individual Rights and Responsibilities); Bar Associations; the District of Columbia Bar; and Legislation and Civil Practice Law and Rules Committee of the Brooklyn Bar Association; Vice President if the Institute for Law and Economic Policy. Mr. Isquith has been Chairman of the Business Tort/Consumer Fraud Committee of the Tort Law Section of the New York State Bar Association and is a member of that Association’s Committees on Securities Law and Legislation. He also serves as a judge for the Moot Court Competition of Columbia University Law School and has served on Fordham University’s National Competition. Mr. Isquith served as President of the National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys in 2003 and 2004. Mr. Isquith is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other national publications. The April 1987 issue of Venture magazine listed Mr. Isquith as among the nation’s top securities class action attorneys. Since 2006 Mr. Isquith has been selected as among the top 5% of attorneys in the New York City metropolitan area chosen to be included in the Super Lawyers Magazine. He was also selected by Lawdragon in its list of attorneys. Martindale Hubbell registers Mr. Isquith as one of the Preeminent Lawyers (2010), Avenue Magazine, Legal Elite (2010).
Courts have commented as follows about Mr. Isquith:
· Parker Friedland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., 99-1002 (D.D.C.) – where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Laughrey said (on October 16, 2008), “[a]ll of the attorneys in this case have done an outstanding job, and I really appreciate the quality of work that we had in our chambers as a result of this case.”
· In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, MDL-02-1486 (N.D. Cal.) – where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Hamilton said (on August 15, 2007), “I think I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all, watching this litigation progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the results are exceptional. The percentages, as you have outlined them, do put this [case] in one of the upper categories of results of this kind of [antitrust] class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I thought that you all did an exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters that really required the Court’s attention. You did an exceptionally good job at organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case. There was excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs’ counsel with your group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . . . So my conclusion is the case was well litigated by both sides, well managed as well by both sides.”
· In re MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, 150 F. Supp. 2d 896, 903 (E.D. Va. 2001) – where the Firm was co-lead counsel, Judge Ellis commented: “Clearly, the conduct of all counsel in this case and the result they have achieved for all of the parties confirms that they deserve the national recognition they enjoy.”
· In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire Derivative Litigation, 84‑220‑D (D.N.H. 1986) – involving the construction of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, where the Firm was lead counsel, the court said of plaintiffs’ counsel that “the skill required and employed was of the highest caliber.”
· In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F. Supp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) – where the Firm served as co-lead counsel, the court noted the defendants’ concession that “‘plaintiffs’ counsel constitute the cream of the plaintiffs’ bar.’ The Court cannot find fault with that characterization.”
· Steiner v. Equimark Corp., No. 81-1988 (W.D. Pa. 1983) – a case involving complex issues concerning banking practices in which the Firm was lead counsel, then District Judge Mannsman described, in part, the work the Firm performed: We look at the complexity of the issue, the novelty of it, the quality of work that, as the trial judge, I am able to perceive, and then, finally, the amount of recovery obtained: I think I have certainly said a lot in that regard. I think it’s been an extraordinary case. I think it’s an extraordinary settlement. Certainly defense counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel as well are all experienced counsel with a tremendous amount of experience in these particular kinds of cases. And under those circumstances . . . I think it was, really, the strategy and ingenuity of counsel in dividing up the workload and strategizing the cases as to who was to do what and what ultimately should be done to bring about the settlement that was achieved.