Phone: 215.731.9004
Fax: 215.731.9044
ira@trrlaw.com **
-vCard

IRA NEIL RICHARDS, a member of the Firm, is admitted to practice in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of New York, and the District of Nebraska, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. He is a 1986 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law (magna cum laude), where he served as Special Project Director of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. He was elected to the Order of the Coif and received the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association Award and the Wapner, Newman & Associates Award, both for trial advocacy. He is a 1983 graduate of Cornell University, where he received a B.S. in industrial and labor relations.
Mr. Richards has played a prominent role in complex litigation matters, including litigation in the securities, antitrust, and consumer fields, as well as in criminal defense matters in federal and state courts. In the securities area, Mr. Richards has had a substantial role in the following cases, among others: Moskowitz v. Lopp 128 F.R.D. 624 (E.D. Pa. 1989); Steiner, et. al. v. Hercules Corporation, et al., No. 90-422 (D. Del. 1992); and Hayes v. Gross, 982 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. 1992). In Riley v. Simmons, 43 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1994), Mr. Richards successfully argued for the reversal of a District Court’s order dismissing claims of investors in annuities on abstention grounds. Most recently, Mr. Richards served as co-counsel for four Pennsylvania government funds in litigation arising from the funds’ purchases of AOL and Time Warner securities. The litigation resulted in a $23 million settlement for the funds. Mr. Richards also serves as counsel to the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions in derivative litigation arising from a corporation’s alleged backdating of stock options.
In the antitrust field, Mr. Richards served as co-lead counsel in In re Pillar Point Partners Patent and Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1202 (D. Ariz.), which was a multi-district litigation involving antitrust claims asserted against manufacturers of excimer lasers used in vision correction procedures. The litigation resulted in a $50 million settlement on behalf of a class of direct purchasers. Mr. Richards serves as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1556 (M.D. Pa.). In Meijer, Inc. v. 3M (E.D. Pa.), Mr. Richards served as counsel in an action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of private label tapes, alleging monopolization of the tape market. The litigation resulted in a $28.8 million settlement for the class. Mr. Richards also served as a member of the Executive Committee of class counsel in In re Copper Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1303 (D. Wis.), was a member of the deposition team in In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, (E.D. Pa.), and is one of plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Mercedes Benz Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.), and is counsel for the City of Philadelphia in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.). Mr. Richards served as co-lead counsel and a member of the trial team in an action against the major domestic airlines, see In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litigation, 898 F. Supp. 685 (D. Minn. 1995), which resulted an $86 million settlement for travel agency owners. Mr. Richards presently is involved in a variety of other antitrust matters in a variety of capacities.
In the financial services area, Mr. Richards has litigated claims arising from the sale of credit insurance, home improvement financing, and the force placement of insurance, among other things, serving as lead or co-lead counsel in several cases that have resulted in significant recoveries. In Denise Roberts v. Fleet Bank (R.I.), N.A., 342 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2003), Mr. Richards successfully argued for application of the Truth in Lending Act in a case involving credit card solicitations. Mr. Richards also served as co-lead counsel in litigation on behalf of financial advisors asserting claims under ERISA and state law, obtaining a $15 million settlement in this litigation.
Mr. Richards has been active in the Firm’s criminal defense practice, particularly in issues relating to the application of RICO, and the forfeiture of assets, and in post-trial and appellate proceedings. In addition, Mr. Richards has represented a variety of individuals and businesses in a range of litigation matters involving employment, contract, defamation, and other claims in both state and federal courts. For example, Mr. Richards served as co-counsel to the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia City Commissioners in litigation challenging the acquisition of voting equipment and the selection of polling places, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Richards also successfully represented the Philadelphia Housing Authority in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (en banc) involving an issue of first impression under the Expedited Eviction of Drug Traffickers Act.
Mr. Richards is the co-author of an article published in the Practicing Law Institute’s Practical Litigator on the trial of securities actions. He has also lectured on financial services and litigation issues. In addition, Mr. Richards serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Congregation Beth Tikvah-B’nai Jeshuran and President of its Mens Club, as a coordinator for the Plymouth Soccer Club, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia Region of the Anti-Defamation League. In 1999, Mr. Richards was named one of the Philadelphia Business Journal’s “40 Under 40.” In 2004, 2005, and 2006, Mr. Richards was named one of Pennsylvania’s “Super Lawyers.”
**The transmission of an email does not form an attorney-client relationship with Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC. Please do not assume that your email to us is privileged or confidential. Please do not send confidential information via email without previously consulting one of our attorneys. If we do not already represent you, by sending us an email, you recognize that our review of your information, even if it is confidential and even if it is transmitted in an effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.