Client Alerts
Supreme Court Rejects Financial Harm Requirement for SEC Disgorgement
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt to limit the ability of the U.S. Securities and …
June 9, 2026
June 9, 2026 • 3-minute read
Partner
Shareholder Litigation & Enforcement
“I like to get my hands dirty and really learn my cases thoroughly. I try to understand how the situation in which the client finds itself could have happened. And I’m pretty good at creating a narrative so that laypeople who have no familiarity with a very complicated business or technology can understand the matter.”
Chambers USA, 2016–2019, 2021–2026
Michael Charlson handles complex litigation matters across a range of substantive areas, although he focuses his practice on securities class action, corporate governance and shareholder derivative litigation and related counseling. For more than 30 years, Michael has represented corporations, officers, directors and other constituencies, usually in lawsuits and investigations related to allegations that they have issued false and misleading statements or mismanaged the company. His clients span industries, from the most cutting-edge biotech innovators to gravel pit operators, and everything in between. And they are often facing billions of dollars of damages and serious threats to the enterprise’s continued existence. Michael also co-led the team that secured a jury verdict for defendants (including his client, the former CEO) in In re JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation, one of only a handful of securities class actions that have gone to trial.
Michael has also represented companies and individuals on a range of matters before the Securities and Exchange Commission, including SEC investigations and enforcement proceedings involving allegations of insider trading (including tipper and tippee allegations), improper accounting, inadequate disclosure, improper supervision and books-and-records violations. In SEC matters, Michael has prepared Wells or pre-Wells submissions on behalf of some 20 clients; none has been charged.
Michael serves as Office Managing Partner and Talent and Diversity Lead of the San Francisco office. He is also Co-Head of V&E’s Securities Litigation & Enforcement practice. Again in 2019, Michael was recognized by Chambers USA for his “exceedingly deep knowledge base” in securities litigation. He has also been recognized in Legal 500 and as a Northern California SuperLawyer for many years.
Represents the Audit Committee of a public multinational technology company involved in an ongoing investigation before the SEC and DOJ to conduct an independent investigation into the company’s compliance with the FCPA in Russia and four other countries
(9th Cir.); (N.D. Cal.); (Cal. Super. – Santa Clara Cnty.) – Secured on appeal affirmance of dismissal of a securities class action complaint against VIVUS, Inc. and two senior officers, arising from disappointing FDA action on a drug approval application; represented defendant officers and directors also in related shareholder derivative litigations in federal and state courts in California
(Del. Ch.); (W.D. Wash.); (Wash. Super. – King Cnty.) — Represented a biotechnology company, and various officers and directors, in a consolidated securities class action in federal court in Washington State, and in related individual securities litigation and shareholder derivative litigations in state and federal court in Washington State and in Delaware, relating generally to missed revenue guidance, the withdrawal of financial guidance and alleged insider trading; all litigation was settled favorably
(Tax) – Represented taxpayers in U.S. Tax Court and other IRS proceedings over allegations that the individuals and their entities engaged in improper tax shelter transactions
(D. Md.) – Defended officers and directors of a biopharmaceutical company in connection with allegedly improper grants of equity incentive compensation
(Cal. Super. – Santa Clara Cnty.) — Represented directors and officers of biotechnology company in shareholder litigation alleging mismanagement of a new drug launch; case dismissed
(D. Md.) — Initial Motion to Dismiss granted with prejudice of a securities class action against a biotechnology company, and certain officers and directors, related to a failed drug trial
(N.D. Cal.); (Cal. Super. – Santa Clara Cnty.) – Represented company, directors, and officers in private securities fraud litigation arising from stock price decline following disappointing sales of a drug product
(N.D. Cal.); (Cal. Super. – Santa Clara Cnty.) – Tried to defense verdict a securities class action on behalf of the former chief executive officer of the issuer defendant; the plaintiff class had sought $20 billion in damages; represented the officer in related opt-out and shareholder derivative actions as well
(D.N.J. and various other jurisdictions) – Represented a major accounting firm in accounting malpractice and fraud claims brought against it by a public company after accounting irregularities were discovered at a company that the plaintiff had purchased, and where the plaintiff had paid more than $3 billion to settle securities and other litigation relating to those irregularities; also represented the accounting firm in related counterclaims, in related litigation matters around the country, and before the SEC
(N.D. Cal.); (Cal. Super. – San Francisco Cnty.) – Represented the Chief Executive Officer of a medical software company sued in class and derivative litigations, following his company’s acquisition by a large life sciences company, over accounting irregularities discovered post-acquisition
(N.D. Cal.) – Represented a pharmaceutical company and its senior officers in a securities class action arising out of a failed drug trial
(N.D. Cal.) – Represented underwriters in securities class action litigation filed against a company that had two public offerings during the class period, but then announced disappointing earnings
(S.D.N.Y.) – Represented a venture investor in securities class action litigation filed against a specialty clothing manufacturer after it announced disappointing earnings
Acted on behalf of a security software company in various SEC inquiries, including alleged front-running insider trades or tips associated with certain corporate announcements
(N.D. Cal.) – Represented a systems software company, its former CEO and former CFO, in a securities class action arising from a missed revenue forecast
Represented the accounting firm partner in charge of the audit of a producer and distributor of pasta food products in an SEC investigation following that company’s revelation of accounting irregularities
Represented board committees, companies, directors, and officers in various internal investigations, shareholder litigations, and SEC investigations into potential stock option backdating
Represented a company CEO in an SEC investigation into insider trading related to an M&A transaction involving his company
Represented an investor relations professional in an SEC investigation into possible tipping and front-running
(N.D. Cal.) – Represented a security software company and its directors and officers in securities class action litigation alleging improper revenue recognition as a result of channel stuffing
(Cal. Super. – Santa Clara Cnty.) – Defended a life sciences company, which was a major investor in a company that developed ophthalmic lasers, in breach of fiduciary duty litigation brought by another shareholder
(Cal. Super. – Los Angeles Cnty.) – Represented a security and utilities software company in a private securities action related to a company in which client held an equity interest
(Del.) – Represented a special board committee, including in litigation in Delaware, over fiduciary issues surrounding the committee’s consideration of, and recommendation with respect to, a tender offer issued by a majority shareholder in a public company for the balance of the company’s stock; the case resulted in a published decision of the Delaware Supreme Court that established the fiduciary standards for handling such transactions, affirming the steps we had recommended
(Del. Ch.); (Ind. Super.) – Defended marine transportation services company and its board in M&A litigation brought on behalf of individual stockholders as a result of a going-private transaction
(Del. Ch. and Mass.) – Defended a software company and its board in M&A litigation involving a going-private transaction
(S.D.N.Y.) – Defended a video compression software company and its board in M&A litigation after a technology giant purchased the company
(N.D. Ill.) – Defended a drug delivery technology company and its board in M&A litigation brought by shareholders, and involving the buyer, after the buyer, a large pharmaceutical company, was sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration, resulting in a large decline in the value of the stock being used for the purchase
Represented a public company in an internal investigation into a whistleblower complaint of improper accounting and control weaknesses where the whistleblower was the former head of Internal Audit
Represented the Audit Committee of a clean technology solar products and solutions company in an internal investigation into accounting irregularities in the company’s Philippines operations
Represented companies, Audit Committees, Compensation Committee members, and individual officers and directors in various roles in roughly a dozen stock-option backdating cases; the representations included internal and SEC investigations, and related shareholder litigations
Represented the Chief Executive Officer of a technology company in connection with an Audit Committee and SEC investigation into whistleblower allegations of accounting improprieties
Represented the Controller of a technology company in connection with an Audit Committee and SEC investigation into allegations of accounting improprieties
Represented the Special Litigation Committee of a public technology company in connection with allegations of improper accounting in response to a shareholder derivative lawsuit
Represented the Special Litigation Committee of a public technology company in connection with allegations of insider trading by senior executives in advance of disappointing sales, in response to a shareholder derivative lawsuit
Represented the Special Litigation Committee of a public utility relating to cost overruns in its construction of a major power plant, in response to a shareholder derivative lawsuit
(N.D. Cal.); (Cal. Super. – San Francisco Cnty.) – Represented a debt collection company in a consumer class action alleging violations of the various consumer protection laws
Represented a private equity investment fund and its founder in an individual action brought by an investor for fraud and other torts
(N.D. Cal.) – Represented a leading IT products/services company in an IP licensing dispute
(N.D. Cal. (MDL)) – Represented a major technology company in a consumer class action over privacy issues associated with the company’s device and terms of the customer agreement
(N.D. Cal.) – Represented a major bank in a series of class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the operations of the bank’s personal trust operations
(C.D. Cal.) – Represented a major bank in connection with alleged breaches of contract, breaches of duty, and other torts associated with the collapse of a secondary market maker in student loans
Education
Admissions
Client Alerts
Supreme Court Rejects Financial Harm Requirement for SEC Disgorgement
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt to limit the ability of the U.S. Securities and …
June 9, 2026
June 9, 2026 • 3-minute read
Client Alerts
Two High Court Securities Cases Could Clarify Pleading Rules
In granting certiorari in Facebook Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank and Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its intention to provide further guidance concerning application of the heightened standard for pleading private securities fraud claims mandated by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
October 4, 2024 • Published by Law360 on October 3, 2024
October 4, 2024 • 1-minute read
Client Alerts
SCOTUS To Focus on the Securities Fraud Pleading Standard in Two Cases Next Term
In a pair of orders issued this month, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled plans to provide further guidance in its upcoming Fall term concerning application of the heightened standard for pleading securities fraud claims mandated by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”).
July 1, 2024
July 1, 2024 • 6-minute read
Client Alerts
Out from the Shadows: The SEC Succeeds on Shadow Insider Trading Theory
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) caught the attention of the corporate and investment world in August 2021 when it filed an insider trading action against biopharmaceutical company employee Matthew Panuwat based on a “shadow trading” theory.
April 15, 2024
April 15, 2024 • 4-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2026 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 47 practice categories. In total, …
June 10, 2026
June 10, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Lawdragon Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Lawyers to Its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide
Lawdragon has recognized 34 Vinson & Elkins attorneys in its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.
September 12, 2025
September 12, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Best Lawyers in America (BL Rankings, LLC) has named 125 Vinson & Elkins lawyers in its “Best Lawyers” category in the 2026 edition. Additionally, 76 Vinson & Elkins attorneys have been named in the “Ones to Watch” category, which recognizes lawyers with 5–10 years’ experience. Some individuals are listed in more than one practice area, giving the firm a total of 305 rankings.
August 21, 2025
August 21, 2025 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2025 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 43 practice categories. In total, 133 attorneys are recognized, many in more than one category. Vinson & Elkins attorneys earned multiple special designations, such as “Leading Trial Lawyer,’ “Hall of Fame,” “Leading Partner,” “Next Generation Partner,” and “Leading Associate.”
June 11, 2025
June 11, 2025 • 3-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith 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.