Skip to Main Content

Jennifer L. Joost


D   415.400.3009

Jennifer L. Joost, a partner in the Firm’s San Francisco office, has devoted her practice to representing plaintiffs in large-scale complex class actions. Ms. Joost has represented individual and institutional investors in a variety of securities class actions including some of the largest class actions to arise out of the most recent financial crisis. Ms. Joost received her law degree, cum laude, from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where she was the Special Projects Editor for the Temple International and Comparative Law Journal. Ms. Joost earned her undergraduate degree (B.A.) in History with honors from Washington University in St. Louis. She is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and California.

Ms. Joost was part of the team who litigated In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, No. 09 MDL 2058 (S.D.N.Y.), which settled on the eve of trial for $2.425 billion and In re Citigroup, Inc. Bond Litig., No. 08 Civ. 9522 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), which settled for $730 million. Ms. Joost also was part of the team that litigated Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. BC 380698, which settled for $500 million in 2013. Ms. Joost likewise was part of the team that successfully litigated claims on behalf of a class of investors in In re Ocwen Financial Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-81057-WPD in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case ultimately settled for $56 million on the eve of trial. Most recently, Ms. Joost was part of a team that successfully litigated claims in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class of investors in In re Snap Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR. The case settled in January 2020 for $154 million two months before trial. Ms. Joost has led discovery in or otherwise been involved in all aspects of pre-trial proceedings for more than 20 settled or pending actions, including: In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Sec. Litig., No. 12-cv-03852-GBD (S.D.N.Y.) ($150 million recovery); Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 08-cv-06324-PAM-AJB (D. Minn) ($85 million recovery); In re MGM Mirage Sec. Litig., No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-VCF (D. Nevada) ($75 million recovery); and In re Weatherford Int’l Sec. Litig., No. 11 Civ. 1646 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) ($52.5 million recovery).


  • Member, AAJ
  • Member of AAJ Legal Affairs Committee


  • Super Lawyers -- Rising Star, PA: 2010-2011
  • Super Lawyers -- Rising Star, Northern CA: 2013-2014, 2016-2021
  • LawDragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers: 2019-2021

Current Cases

  • CASE CAPTION    In re Carnival Corp. Securities Litigation
    COURT United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
    CASE NUMBER 1:20-cv-22202-KMM
    JUDGE Honorable K. Michael Moore

    Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension and Annuity Funds, New England Carpenters Pension & Guaranteed Annuity Funds, & Michael W. Slaunwhite

    DEFENDANTS Carnival Corp., Carnival plc, and Arnold W. Donald
    CLASS PERIOD September 16, 2019 to March 31, 2020

    This securities fraud class action concerns Defendants’ statements touting Carnival’s compliance with health and safety requirements and related protocols and with respect to the risk and impact of COVID-19 on its passengers, crew, and business. Carnival is the world’s largest cruise operator, carrying nearly half of the world’s cruise passengers on voyages around the world on over 100 ships across nine cruise lines. At the start of the Class Period, Defendants announced the creation of Carnival’s Incident Analysis Group (the “IAG”). The Company tasked the IAG with making recommendations to enhance Carnival’s Health, Environment, Safety, and Security (“HESS”) policies and procedures and developing programs to standardize training and investigation of the Company’s HESS issues.

    The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic illustrated that Carnival’s HESS policies, Defendants’ statements touting their commitment to their passengers’ and crew members’ health safety, and the Company’s commitment to keeping its ships “free of . . . illness” were ultimately false. As COVID-19 spread throughout the world in the early months of 2020, unbeknownst to investors, Carnival’s policies, procedures, and infrastructure were insufficient, if existent at all. Rather than publicly acknowledging the risks posed by the coronavirus and that its policies, procedures, and protocols were insufficient to address them, Carnival publicly projected a “business as usual” narrative. Specifically, Carnival kept its ships full and on the water, continued to sell cruise tickets, and limited customers’ access to refunds. All the while, Carnival’s deficient health and safety protocols created all manner of problems on its ships, which ultimately proved to be virulent breeding grounds for the virus, causing severe illness and death among its passengers.

    Despite Defendants’ falsely optimistic outlook on Carnival’s ability to contain the coronavirus and the potential effects of the virus on their business, the relevant truth began to emerge in mid-March. First, on March 16, 2020, Defendants disclosed publicly what they had known since late January: that COVID-19 would have a “material negative impact on [Carnival’s] financial results and liquidity,” and while the Company would be “unable to provide an earnings forecast,” it “expect[ed] results of operations for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2020 to result in a net loss.” The price of both Carnival common stock and Carnival ADSs declined by over 12% on this news. Then, on March 31, 2020, Defendants comprehensively revised the risk factors contained in the Company’s Form 10-K. These new risk factors finally divulged the true and extremely serious risks that the coronavirus pandemic posed to Carnival’s business as a result of Defendants’ inability to implement adequate policies, procedures, and protocols to safeguard passengers’ and employees’ health and safety. On this news, shares of Carnival common stock declined by 34%, and the price of Carnival ADSs declined by a similar amount.

    Plaintiffs’ filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on July 2, 2021. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Court.  

    Read Second Amended Class Action Complaint Here

Landmark Results

  • We represented the Miami Beach Employees’ Retirement Plan, the Philadelphia Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Pension Fund, and the City of Tallahassee Pension Plan in this historic class action against Citigroup before Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs and a class of Citigroup bondholders alleged that Citigroup concealed its exposure to subprime mortgage debt on the eve of the 2008 financial crisis—exposure that, once revealed, led to massive investment losses.  The $730 million settlement is believed to be the second largest recovery ever for a Section 11 claim under the Securities Act on behalf of corporate bondholders.  

  • As co-lead counsel representing the Maine Public Employees’ Retirement System, secured a $500 million settlement for a class of plaintiffs that purchased mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide).

    Plaintiffs alleged that Countrywide and various of its subsidiaries, officers and investment banks made false and misleading statements in more than 450 prospectus supplements relating to the issuance of subprime and Alt-A MBS—in particular, the quality of the underlying loans. When information about the loans became public, the plaintiffs’ investments declined in value. The ensuing six-year litigation raised several issues of first impression in the Ninth Circuit.

  • This securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stemmed from the “London Whale” derivatives trading scandal at JPMorgan Chase. Shareholders alleged that JPMorgan concealed the high-risk, proprietary trading activities of the investment bank’s Chief Investment Office, including the highly volatile, synthetic credit portfolio linked to trader Bruno Iksil—a.k.a., the “London Whale”—which caused a $6.2 billion loss in a matter of weeks. Shareholders accused JPMorgan of falsely downplaying media reports of the synthetic portfolio, including on an April 2012 conference call when JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon dismissed these reports as a “tempest in a teapot,” when in fact, the portfolio’s losses were swelling as a result of the bank’s failed oversight.

    This case was resolved in 2015 for $150 million, following U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels’ order certifying the class, representing a significant victory for investors.