William S. Norton

Bill has represented institutional and individual investors in securities fraud and shareholders actions before federal, state, and appellate courts throughout the country. He has also represented whistleblowers before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission through the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program and qui tam relators in actions under the False Claims Act.

Securities Fraud Litigation

Bill represents institutional investors as a member of the lead counsel teams in litigation involving Amazon.com Inc., Intel Corporation, Qualcomm Inc., Seagate Technology Holdings plc, and Sotera Health Company. His previous securities fraud matters include:

• In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation ($192.5 million recovery as Liaison Counsel*)
• Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp. ($131 million recovery*)
• Boston Retirement System v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ($125 million recovery*)
• City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc. ($62 million recovery*)
• Hill v. State Street Corporation ($60 million recovery*)
• City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System v. Hospira, Inc. ($60 million recovery*)
• In re Hewlett-Packard Company Securities Litigation ($57 million recovery*)
• In re Medtronic, Inc. Securities Litigation ($43 million recovery*)
• Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ($29.5 million recovery*)
• Ross v. Career Education Corporation ($27.5 million recovery*)

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Bill has represented shareholders in derivative actions, including:

• Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder ($16.7 million payment and significant corporate governance reforms*)
• In re Walgreen Co. Derivative Litigation (corporate governance reforms concerning compliance with Controlled Substances Act*)

Merger and Acquisition Litigation

Bill has represented institutional shareholders in corporate M&A litigation, including:

• In re Allion Healthcare, Inc. Shareholders Litigation ($4 million payment to shareholders*)
• In re RehabCare Group, Inc., Shareholders Litigation ($2.5 million payment, modification of merger agreement, and additional disclosures to shareholders*)
• In re Atheros Communications Shareholder Litigation (preliminary injunction delaying shareholder vote and requiring additional disclosures to shareholders in $3.1 billion merger*)
• Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. PLATO Learning, Inc. (preliminary injunction requiring additional disclosures to shareholders in $143 million private-equity buyout*)

Other Commercial, Consumer Fraud, and Whistleblower Matters 

Bill has represented clients in a variety of commercial, consumer fraud, and whistleblower matters, including:  

• Satellite retailers in class action against EchoStar Corporation ($83 million recovery*)
• Municipal bondholders in class action concerning alleged Ponzi scheme ($7.8 million recovery*)
• A qui tam whistleblower in appeal, resulting in reinstatement of claim for employment retaliation*
• Consumers in class action against DirecTV regarding early cancellation fees
• German bank in litigation concerning collateralized debt obligations
• Investors in actions concerning variable life insurance policies funneled to the Madoff Ponzi scheme

Before joining Motley Rice, Bill practiced securities and commercial litigation in the New York office of an international law firm. In law school, Bill served as an Editor of the Boston University Law Review and was a G. Joseph Tauro Distinguished Scholar. He worked as a law clerk in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, represented asylum seekers at Greater Boston Legal Services, and studied law at the University of Oxford. Before law school, Bill worked for the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina and volunteered with the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program of Charleston. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of South Carolina Honors College. Bill is recognized as an AV®-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell®.

* 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.