Skip to Main Content

Daniel B. Rotko


D   610.822.0256
F   610.667.7056

Daniel B. Rotko, an associate of the Firm, concentrates his practice in the area of securities-related litigation matters. 

Prior to joining Kessler Topaz, Daniel was an associate for over five years at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (now known as Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP) and his practice primarily concerned representing insurers in civil matters litigated across the country. Daniel received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and his undergraduate degree from Gettysburg College. Daniel is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.


  • Philadelphia Bar Association


  • Executive Director of the Journal of Business Law (2014-2015)
  • EAP Volunteer of the Year (2013-2014)

Current Cases

  • CASE CAPTION             In re Apache Corp. Securities Litigation
    COURT United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
    CASE NUMBER 4:21-CV-00575
    JUDGE Honorable George C. Hanks, Jr.
    PLAINTIFF Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs Plymouth County Retirement Association and the Trustees of the Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund
    DEFENDANTS Apache Corporation, John F. Christmann IV, Timothy J. Sullivan, & Stephen J. Riney
    CLASS PERIOD September 7, 2016 to March 13, 2020, inclusive

    This securities fraud class action arises from Apache’s materially false and misleading statements regarding its purportedly groundbreaking oil and gas discovery in West Texas, which it dubbed “Alpine High.”  Starting in September 2016, Defendants claimed the play held copious amounts of valuable oil and gas on par with world-class plays like the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and the Eagle Ford in Texas, which Apache could economically exploit, and thus drive company revenues for years to come.   Investors accepted the claims, and Apache’s common stock price skyrocketed.  However, Lead Plaintiffs’ extensive investigation has revealed that Defendants’ claims were baseless.  Internal studies at Apache prior to September 2016 established that Alpine High was characterized by low-value gas, not valuable oil or gas resources.  Confirming this, Apache’s own production data from the wells it drilled at Alpine High showed that the area held hardly any oil and gas that could be economically exploited, let alone the vast amounts Defendants repeatedly touted to investors.  Scrambling to contain the failure, Defendants fired multiple dissenters from inside the company and shielded Alpine High production data from ordinary disclosure and review—but they could sustain the sham only so long.  The truth concerning Alpine High was gradually revealed to the public through a series of disclosures on October 9, 2017, February 22, 2018, April 23, 2019, October 25, 2019, and March 16, 2020, which collectively showed that the play was an unprofitable bust.  Apache’s stock prices fell sharply on each partial corrective disclosure, causing massive losses to defrauded shareholders.

    On December 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors, alleging that Apache, John Christmann IV, Timothy Sullivan, and Stephen Riney violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Alpine High play; and that Christmann IV, Sullivan, and Riney, as controlling persons of Apache, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On September 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Edison issued a Memorandum and Recommendation denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  On November 29, 2022, the Court overruled Defendants’ objections to the Recommendation.  The case is now in fact discovery.

    Read Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here

  • CASE CAPTION             Courter, et al. v. CytoDyn, Inc., et al.
    COURT United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
    CASE NUMBER C21-5190 BHS
    JUDGE Honorable Benjamin H. Settle
    PLAINTIFF Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Brian Joe Courter and Courter and Sons LLC, and Additional Plaintiffs Diane M. Hooper, Thomas McGee and Candra E. Evans
    DEFENDANTS CytoDyn, Inc. Nader Z. Pourhassan, Michael Mulholland, and Scott A. Kelly
    CLASS PERIOD March 27, 2020 and May 17, 2021, inclusive 

    This securities fraud class action arises out of Defendants’ public conduct and misrepresentations concerning CytoDyn’s only prospective drug, leronlimab, during 2020-2021.  Defendants’ fraudulent misconduct came in several forms:  materially false and misleading statements concerning CytoDyn’s application to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the use of leronlimab to treat HIV; material misstatements concerning purported data and information showing leronlimab’s safety and efficacy as a treatment for COVID-19; and Defendants’ scheme to directly and indirectly promote leronlimab’s promise as a COVID-19 treatment and thus pump up CytoDyn’s common stock price, after which Defendants “dumped,” or rapidly sold, millions of dollars’ worth of their personally-held shares at inflated prices.

    Adverse facts known to Defendants, but concealed from investors throughout the Class Period, showed that CytoDyn’s data regarding leronlimab was nowhere near sufficient to support an application for regulatory approval of the drug for HIV indications, nor to support claims that leronlimab was efficacious in treating any type of COVID-19 patient.  Indeed, at the end of the Class Period and afterwards, Defendants received communications from the FDA and/or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) indicating that Defendants’ public representations touting leronlimab and its potential FDA approval and COVID-19 application were not supported by data and accepted analyses.  The truth regarding Defendants’ misrepresentations came onto the market in a set of disclosures in 2020 and 2021 that led to sharp declines in CytoDyn’s stock price, causing significant losses and damages to the Company’s investors.  On July 30, 2021, CytoDyn disclosed that it was being investigated by both the SEC and the United States Department of Justice.

    Plaintiffs successfully moved to modify the automatic discovery stay under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and received documents from Defendants starting in early 2022, before any motion to dismiss was adjudicated.  On June 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a 228-page amended complaint, under seal, on behalf of a putative class of investors against CytoDyn and its executives, including CEO Nader Pourhassan, CFO Michael Mulholland, and CMO Scott A. Kelly.  Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements and concealing material facts about CytoDyn’s data and regulatory actions and prospects concerning the investigational drug leronlimab, and engaging in a fraudulent promotional scheme regarding the same.  Plaintiffs also claim Defendants Pourhassan, Mulholland and Kelly are liable as control persons of CytoDyn under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that they violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling personally held shares of CytoDyn common stock while aware of material nonpublic information concerning leronlimab.  In August, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The parties are currently engaged in briefing on that motion.

    Read Amended Class Action Complaint Here

    Read Second Amended Class Action Complaint Here 

    View the Press Releases Chart

  • CASE CAPTION  In re Lucid Group, Inc. Sec. Litig.
    COURT United States District Court for the Northern District of California
    CASE NUMBER 3:22-cv-02094-JD
    JUDGE Honorable James Donato 
    PLAINTIFF Sjunde AP-Fonden (“AP7”)
    DEFENDANTS Lucid Group, Inc., Peter Rawlinson, and Sherry House
    CLASS PERIOD November 15, 2021 to August 3, 2022, inclusive

    Defendant Lucid designs, produces, and sells luxury EVs. This securities fraud class action arises out of Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding Lucid’s production of its only commercially-available electronic vehicle (“EV”), the Lucid Air, and the factors impacting that production.  

    To start the Class Period, on November 15, 2021, Defendants told investors that Lucid would produce 20,000 Lucid Airs in 2022. This was false, and Defendants knew it. According to numerous former Lucid employees, Defendants already knew then that Lucid would produce less than 10,000 units in 2022, and admitted this fact during internal meetings preceding the Class Period.  They also knew why Lucid could not meet this production target—the Company was suffering from its own unique and severe problems that were stalling production of the Lucid Air, including internal logistics issues, design flaws, and the key drivers of parts shortages.  These problems had not only prevented, but continued to prevent Lucid from ramping up production of the Lucid Air.  

    Despite the actual state of affairs at Lucid, on November 15, 2021, and at all times thereafter during the Class Period, Defendants concealed these severe, internal, Company-specific problems. At every turn, when asked about the pace of production, or to explain the factors causing Lucid’s production delays, Defendants blamed the Company’s woes on the purported impact of external, industrywide supply chain problems and repeatedly assured investors that the Company was “mitigating” that global impact. These misrepresentations left investors with a materially false and misleading impression about Lucid’s actual production and internal ability and readiness to mass produce its vehicles. Against that backdrop, Defendants then lied, time and again, about the number of vehicles Lucid would produce. Even when, in February 2022, Defendants announced a reduced production target of 12,000 to 14,000 units, they continued to point to purported industry-wide supply chain problems and once more assured the market that the Company was thriving in spite of such issues. When the truth regarding Lucid’s false claims about its production and the factors impacting that production finally emerged, Lucid’s stock price cratered, causing massive losses for investors.

    On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a 138-page consolidated complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants Lucid, Rawlinson, and House violated 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On February 23, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Briefing on that motion is set to close in June 2023.  

  • CASE CAPTION John Harvey Schneider, et al. v. Natera, Inc., et al.
    COURT United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
    CASE NUMBER 1:22-cv-00398-LY
    JUDGE Honorable Lee Yeakel

    British Airways Pension Trustees Limited (“BAPTL”) and Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund (“Key West P&F”)

    DEFENDANTS Natera, Inc., Steve Chapman, Michael Brophy, Matthew Rabinowitz, Paul R. Billings, Roy Baynes, Monica Bertagnolli, Roelof F. Botha, Rowan Chapman, Todd Cozzens, James I. Healy, Gail Marcus, Herm Rosenman, Jonathan Sheena, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, SVB Leerink LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., BTIG, LLC, and Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC
    CLASS PERIOD February 26, 2020 to March 14, 2022, inclusive

    This securities fraud class action arises out of Natera’s representations and omissions about the purported “superiority” of its kidney transplant rejection test, Prospera, compared to a competitor’s product, AlloSure, and the revenues and demand associated with the Company’s flagship non-invasive prenatal screening test, Panorama.  During the Class Period, Defendants touted Prospera’s superiority over AlloSure based on what they represented as a head-to-head comparison of underlying study data.  However, internal Natera emails revealed that Natera recognized that the comparisons were unsupported and misleading.  Further, Defendants consistently highlighted the impressive revenue performance and seemingly organic demand for Panorama.  However, the market was unaware that Natera employed several deceptive billing and sales practices that inflated these metrics.  Meanwhile, Defendants, CEO Steve Chapman, CFO Matthew Brophy, and co-founder and Executive Chairman of the Board, Matthew Rabinowitz, sold more than $137 million worth of Natera common stock during the Class Period.  Natera also cashed in, conducting two secondary public offerings, selling investors over $800 million of Natera common stock during the Class Period.

    The truth regarding Prospera’s false claims of superiority and the Company’s deceptive billing and sales practices was disclosed to the public through disclosures on March 9, 2022, and March 14, 2022.  Natera’s stock price fell significantly in response to each corrective disclosure, causing massive losses for investors.

    On October 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an 89-page amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Natera, Chapman, Brophy, Rabinowitz, and former Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Medical Affairs, Paul R. Billings, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants Chapman, Brophy, and Rabinowitz violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling personally held shares of Natera common stock, while aware of material nonpublic information concerning Prospera and Panorama.  In addition, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Chapman, Brophy, Rabinowitz, several Natera directors, and the underwriters associated with Natera’s July 2021 secondary public offering violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.

    On December 16, 2022, Defendants filed motions to the complaint, which Plaintiffs opposed on February 17, 2023.  Briefing on those motions will close in April 2023.

    Read Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here