Donald J. Enright

During his 28 years as a litigator and trial lawyer, Mr. Enright has handled matters in the fields of securities, commodities, consumer fraud and commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on shareholder class action litigation. He has been named as one of the leading financial litigators in the nation by Lawdragon, as a Washington, D.C. "Super Lawyer"​ by Thomson Reuters, and as one of the city's "Top Lawyers"​ by Washingtonian magazine. One jurist on the Delaware Court of Chancery recently remarked that Don's advocacy skills were "a textbook of how oral arguments should be done."

Mr. Enright has shown a track record of achieving victories in federal trials and appeals, including:

• Nathenson v. Zonagen, Inc., 267 F. 3d 400, 413 (5th Cir. 2001)
• SEC v. Butler, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7194 (W.D. Pa. April 18, 2005)
• Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F. 3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
• Rensel v. Centra Tech Inc., 2 F. 4th 1359 (11th Cir. 2021)

Over the course of his career, Mr. Enright has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Most recently, in Karsan Value Fund v. Kostecki Brokerage Pty, Ltd. et al., Case No. C.A. No. 2021-0899-LWW (Delaware Chancery), Mr. Enright was lead counsel for the class, and recovered a $9.5 million common fund for the minority stockholders in connection with a controller buyout – a $1.90 per share (75%) increase on top of the original merger consideration of $2.55 per share.  The Court of Chancery approved the settlement on April 4, 2024, and remarked that it was “strong” and a “great settlement.”

Similarly, in In re Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Case No. 10323-VCZ, Mr. Enright served as Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiff class in achieving an aggregate recovery of more than $22 million -- a gross increase from $31.50 to $67.45 in total consideration per share (a 114% increase) for tendering stockholders. This was one of the largest recoveries as a percentage of the underlying merger consideration in the history of Delaware M&A litigation.

As Co-Lead Counsel in In re Bluegreen Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 502011CA018111 (Cir. Ct. for Palm Beach Cnty., Fla.), Mr. Enright achieved a $36.5 million common fund settlement in the wake of a majority shareholder buyout, representing a 25% increase in total consideration to the minority stockholders.

Mr. Enright has played a leadership role in numerous other shareholder class actions from inception to conclusion, producing multi-million-dollar recoveries involving such companies as:

Mr. Enright also has a successful track record of obtaining injunctive relief in connection with shareholder M&A litigation, having won injunctions in the cases of:

• In re Portec Rail Products, Inc. S’holder Litig., G.D. 10-3547 (Ct. Com. Pleas Pa. 2010)
• In re Craftmade International, Inc. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 6950-VCL (Del. Ch. 2011)
• Dias v. Purches, C.A. No. 7199-VCG (Del. Ch. 2012)
• In re Complete Genomics, Inc. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 7888-VCL (Del. Ch. 2012)
• In re Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. Stockholder Litig., Lead Case No. 115CV279142 (Sup. Ct. Santa Clara, CA 2015)

Mr. Enright has also demonstrated considerable success in obtaining deal price increases for shareholders in M&A litigation. As Co-Lead Counsel in the matter of In re Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7328-VCN (Del. Ch. 2012), Mr. Enright was partially responsible for a $93 million (57%) increase in merger consideration and waiver of several “don’t-ask-don’t-waive” standstill agreements. Similarly, Mr. Enright served as Co-Lead Counsel in the case of Berger v. Life Sciences Research, Inc., No. SOM-C-12006-09 (NJ Sup. Ct. 2009), which caused a significant increase in the transaction price from $7.50 to $8.50 per share, representing additional consideration for shareholders of approximately $11.5 million. Mr. Enright also served as Co-Lead Counsel in Minerva Group, LP v. Keane, Index No. 800621/2013 (NY Sup. Ct. of Erie Cnty.) and obtained an increased buyout price from $8.40 to $9.25 per share.

The courts have frequently recognized and praised the quality of Mr. Enright’s work:

• In In re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litigation, (D.D.C. 02-1490), Judge Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia observed that Mr. Enright had “...skillfully, efficiently, and zealously represented the class, and... worked relentlessly throughout the course of the case.”
• In Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, LTD, (D.D.C. 99-1002), Judge Nanette Laughrey stated that Mr. Enright and his co-counsel had done “an outstanding job” in connection with the recovery of $43.1 million for the shareholder class.
• In the matter of Osieczanek v. Thomas Properties Group, C.A. No. 9029-VCG (Del. Ch. 2013), Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery observed that “it’s always a pleasure to have counsel [like Mr. Enright] who are articulate and exuberant in presenting their position,” and that Mr. Enright’s prosecution of a merger case was “wholesome” and served as “a model of . . . plaintiffs’ litigation in the merger arena.” 
• In the matter of Adam Turnbull v. Adam Klein, C.A. No. 1125-SG (Del. Ch. 2024), Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock of the Delaware Court of Chancery stated in a hearing, “Mr. Enright, the way you laid out your argument … is extraordinarily helpful to a Court, and it's a textbook of how oral arguments should be done. That's not taking anything away from what the defendants did. But that was, I thought, classic, and I'm glad my clerks and interns and Supreme Court clerks got to hear it.”