Michael P. Carey

Michael P. Carey
  1. People /

Michael P. Carey

Michael P. Carey

Counsel

Michael P. Carey
  1. People /

Michael P. Carey

Michael P. Carey

Counsel

Michael P. Carey

Counsel

Atlanta

T: +1 404 572 6863

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Mike Carey practices in the firm’s Class Actions Group with a focus on director and officer liability, securities litigation, M&A litigation, ERISA litigation, and other complex litigation. He frequently advises public and private corporations and their directors and officers in matters involving federal and state securities laws, corporate governance, executive compensation, employee benefit plans, and major transactions. His clients also include banks and trust companies, broker-dealers and investment advisers, focusing on regulatory compliance issues and disputes involving professional liability and fiduciary duties. Mike has broad experience litigating cases in state and federal courts around the country, conducting internal investigations, and representing clients in government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike’s practice includes a strong focus on federal and state corporate disclosure requirements. He has successfully defended clients against class actions and complex litigation asserting fraud under the federal securities laws as well as state “blue sky” laws. He has extensive experience in cases involving public company mergers, including both pre-closing merger challenge suits and post-closing litigation involving breaches of representations and warranties. Mike also has broad experience in matters involving employee stock plans and retirement plans, having represented ERISA fiduciaries and service providers in disputes involving plan administration, investment selection, monitoring and oversight, professional liability, and fraud. 

In addition to his litigation practice, Mike advises corporations and financial institutions and their directors and officers on issues involving D&O insurance and indemnification, including assessment of coverage, advice with respect to reporting claims, and review of indemnification rights granted in corporate articles and bylaws. He also advises companies and their boards as to general corporate governance matters such as the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers, and disclosure obligations under federal and state law.

Mike has written extensively on litigation issues affecting Georgia corporations and their directors and officers. He publishes an annual survey of corporate and business organization decisions handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court, Georgia Court of Appeals, Fulton County Business Court and Georgia federal courts, and is the co-author of the Director and Officer Liability chapter of Georgia Business Litigation. He is a frequent speaker on matters involving Georgia corporate litigation. In addition, he serves on the Corporate Code Committee of the Georgia Bar’s Business Law Section. 

Professional Affiliations

  • American Bar Association, Business Law and Litigation Sections
  • Atlanta Bar Association, Litigation Section
  • Georgia Bar Association, Business Law and Litigation Sections

Admissions

  • Georgia, 2000
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Education

Duke University, J.D., 2000

Duke University, B.A., 1996

Related Practice Areas

  • Class Actions & Mass Torts

  • Antitrust Class Actions

  • Shareholder Securities and Mergers & Acquisitions

  • Food, Ag & Nutrition (Class Actions)

  • Employment Class & Collective Actions

  • Sports (Class Actions)

  • Data Privacy, Telecommunications & Collections

  • Toxic Tort

  • Financial Services

  • Consumer Fraud

  • ERISA & ESOP

  • Insurance (Class Actions)

  • Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices (Class Actions)

  • Class Actions

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Securities Litigation and Enforcement

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Experience

  • Represented the former independent directors of a large energy company in securities litigation, shareholder derivative litigation and government investigations arising from allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions in the company’s public filings
  • Represented numerous sponsors and fiduciaries of ERISA-qualified retirement plans in “excessive fee” class actions challenging the plan’s investment decisions and monitoring of plan expenses
  • Defended the former majority shareholder and two officers of an ESOP-owned company against breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by the ESOP’s participants
  • Represented the custodian of a multiple employer retirement plan in litigation arising from the plan trustee’s misappropriation of plan assets
  • Defended a multinational pharmaceutical company and its CEO and CFO against securities fraud claims brought by a large shareholder
  • Represented numerous public companies and their boards of directors in litigation challenging major corporate transactions and related public disclosures

Resources

Publications

  • Georgia Business Litigation, Port, co-author of Chapter 1, “Director and Officer Liability” (ALM, 2020 ed.). Contributor since the publication’s inception in 2014
  • “Recent Developments in Officer and Director Litigation,” Carolina Banker, Winter 2014
  • “Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments,” Georgia Bar Journal. Annual contributor since 2014

Speaking Engagements

  • Program Chair and Speaker, “Georgia Business Law Institute,” Georgia ICLE, October 2019
  • "Recent Georgia Corporate and Business Organization Case Law Developments," Fulton County Business Court, Atlanta, GA, February 2016

Related Insights

Insights
Jun 25, 2021

U.S. Supreme Court: Courts Must Consider Generic Nature of Statements in Weighing Certification of Securities Class Action, but Defendants Bear Burden in Rebutting Price Impact

In a closely followed case concerning class certification in securities fraud class actions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that the generic nature of a company’s statements should be considered in determining whether such statements had an impact on the company’s stock price.  The Court also held that in opposing class certification, a securities fraud defendant bears the burden of showing that an alleged misstatement had no effect on the company’s stock price. 

Related Insights

News
Apr 05, 2022
BCLP Team Advises Neenah, Inc., in $3B Merger of Equals
Insights
Jun 25, 2021
U.S. Supreme Court: Courts Must Consider Generic Nature of Statements in Weighing Certification of Securities Class Action, but Defendants Bear Burden in Rebutting Price Impact
In a closely followed case concerning class certification in securities fraud class actions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that the generic nature of a company’s statements should be considered in determining whether such statements had an impact on the company’s stock price.  The Court also held that in opposing class certification, a securities fraud defendant bears the burden of showing that an alleged misstatement had no effect on the company’s stock price.