Thomas C. Bright
Bar and Court Admissions
- District of Columbia
- New York
U.S. Appellate Federal Courts
- Sixth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals
U.S. District Federal Courts
- District of Columbia
- Central District of California
- Eastern District of California
- Northern District of California
- Southern District of California
- Eastern District of Michigan
Thomas C. Bright concentrates his practice on antitrust class action litigation involving price fixing and securities class action litigation involving fraud. He is also one of the Partners who oversees the firm's new matter department.
Mr. Bright handles a range of complex securities fraud cases where the firm is appointed Lead or Co-Lead Counsel, including:
In re VeriFone Systems Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal.)
The firm is representing an institutional investor in litigation alleging the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the company's growth and revenues.
In re China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
The firm is representing an institutional investor in litigation alleging the Offering Documents of the Company contained false and misleading statements.
In re Tronox, Inc., Securities Litigation (S.D. N.Y.)
Recovered $37 million on behalf of investors in a suit against a Company which had been spun-off from a parent corporation. The suit alleged that the Company, its parent corporation, parent's officers and general counsel, and parent's successor corporation were liable for false and misleading statements made about the spun-off company's environmental remediation liabilities and its reserves during and following the company's initial public offering.
Gary Redwen v. Sino Clean Energy, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
Recovered $2 million for investors in a lawsuit alleging Defendants overstated their revenues, owned “ghost factories,” used strictly for show, which had no operations, and identified the existence of customers which were not doing any business with the Company
In re Wonder Auto Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation. (S.D.N.Y.)
Recovered $3 million on behalf of investors in a case alleging Defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions about WATG's financial results, internal controls, and inventory accounting and, as a result, the prices of WATG securities were inflated.
Mr. Bright also played a key role in the following securities cases: In re Aspeon, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00-cv-995 (C.D. Cal.); Jerome Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, et al., No. 03-cv-817914 (Superior Court of Santa Clara); In re HR Block Securities Litigation, No. 06-cv-00236 (W.D. Missouri); In re Peregrine Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-cv-00870 (S.D. Cal.); and In re Rent-Way Securities Litigation, No. 00-cv-323 (W.D. Pa.).
Mr. Bright represents class representatives in antitrust cases, including:
In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.)
The firm represents a freight forwarder serving as a class representative in a multi-district antitrust litigation stemming from an investigation by govaernmental authorities of worldwide price-fixing activity in the air cargo industry. At this time, recoveries in this case exceed $900 million.
In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-md-02002 (E.D. Pa.)
The firm represents two direct purchaser class representatives in antitrust litigation alleging that producers fixed the price of whole eggs and egg products in the United States by controlling the aggregate supply of domestic eggs. To date, the recoveries in this case exceed $60 million.
In re Bearings (E.D. Mich.)
The firm represents two direct purchasers of ball bearings serving as class representatives in a multi-district antitrust litigation alleging worldwide price-fixing activity in the automotive and industrial ball bearing industry.
In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-cv-1516 (W.D. North Carolina)
Recovered $63.5 million on behalf of a class, which represented a little more than 100% of the damages. The firm was appointed Co-Lead Counsel in this multi-district antitrust litigation alleging a national price-fixing conspiracy in the textile industry. Mr. Bright played a lead role in preparing the case for trial and it settled successfully just before the trail began.
In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Mich.)
Recovered $48.4 million in a multi-district antitrust litigation alleging a national price-fixing conspiracy in the refrigerant compressor industry.
In re Parcel Tanker Shipping Svc Antitrust Litigation (D. Conn.)
The firm was appointed Co-Lead Counsel in a multi-district antitrust litigation alleging worldwide price-fixing activity in the parcel tanker industry. The case went to the Supreme Court of the United States where Mr. Bright was on the brief.
Before joining the firm in 2002, Mr. Bright worked for an antitrust, intellectual property and business litigation firm in San Francisco whose clients were small to medium-sized businesses including publicly listed companies.
Prior to his relocation to San Francisco, Mr. Bright engaged in complex business and insurance litigation for four years in the Southern California office of a national firm based in New York. In addition to litigating primarily commercial liability coverage disputes, tort, employment and business matters, Mr. Bright was an entertainment lawyer and assumed various roles in attorney fee matters, ranging from performing internal audits to serving as counsel in litigated matters.
After law school, he worked in the motor sports division of International Management Group, the country's largest sports agency.
Mr. Bright graduated from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History. He received his Juris Doctorate from the Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California. During his final year of law school, he was an extern under Justice Mildred Lillie for the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Division Seven.
Mr. Bright is a member of the State Bar of California, the State Bar of New York and the District of Columbia Bar. Mr. Bright is also admitted to practice in the Southern District of California, Central District of California, Eastern District of California and Northern District of California.