Lance Oliver focuses his practice on class actions, mass torts and other complex litigation. He represents institutional investors in securities fraud class actions and merger and acquisition litigation, and has experience in trial and appellate courts, as well as arbitration and mediation. His recent experience includes:
• Serving as trial counsel representing individual smokers and families of deceased smokers against tobacco manufacturers in the Engle-progeny litigation pending in Florida
• Litigating and resolving shareholders’ breach of fiduciary duty claims in In re Coventry Health Care, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
• Serving as co-class counsel in Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al. v. Pharmacia Corp., et al.
• Litigating and resolving shareholders’ breach of fiduciary duty claims in In re Rehabcare Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Lance has devoted a substantial amount of time to litigating securities fraud class actions and played a key role in documenting and administering the following class action settlements: In re Select Medical Corp. Sec. Litig.; In re NPS Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig.; In re MBNA Sec. Litig.; In re Dell Sec. Litig.
Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2007, Lance served as an associate in the Washington, D.C., office of a national law firm, where he worked on complex products liability litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. Lance also has experience in SEC whistleblower actions.
Lance is an active member of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS) and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP). After graduating from Duke Law School, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James Hughes Hancock of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. He is a member of the American Bar Association, is recognized as an AV® rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell® and was selected for inclusion in the 2013 South Carolina Super Lawyers® Rising Stars list.
* Please remember that every case is different. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.