A Family Forward Practice with Paul, Weiss’ Securities Litigation Co-Chair, Audra Soloway

When Audra Soloway joined Paul, Weiss back in 2002, she knew she was joining a firm with a litigation department unmatched in skill, talent and results. She also found inspiration, mentorship and professional growth – helping explain why she remains at Paul, Weiss more than 20 years later.

Soloway joined the firm in the wake of Enron and has been fascinated with securities law ever since. Her practice spans securities litigation, enforcement proceedings with the SEC and state regulators, corporate internal investigations and regulatory defense.

Soloway is best known for winning high-stakes, impactful cases on behalf of her clients in shareholder class actions. She recently won a major victory in the Southern District of New York in a securities class action on behalf of a mining client; the decision for her client drew on a precedent-setting Supreme Court decision she had helped win for Goldman Sachs a couple of years prior, in Arkansas Teachers Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs.

Though her plate is already quite full, Soloway continues to make time for a busy and high-impact pro bono practice. She works tirelessly alongside nonprofit partners to serve clients in litigation advocating for family and parental rights, among other matters.

Soloway is ranked among the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America as well as in our flagship guide, the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

Lawdragon: What drew you to securities litigation and what do you enjoy most about it?

Audra Soloway: I joined Paul, Weiss as an associate in 2002 in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals, a time when the industry was awash with high-value securities litigation targeting corporations, investment banks and accounting firms over alleged misconduct. After my first few securities cases, I got hooked on securities litigation. It’s a fascinating area of law that touches on the headlines and on every facet of corporate activity and every industry.

Practicing securities litigation puts us at the center of the action in many ways. It also generally follows the news, so if there is a story dominating the media, we’re likely to see it crop up in a securities case down the road.

LD: Is there an early case in your career that stands out as particularly memorable?

AS: On one of my first securities cases, I was assigned the task of identifying the arguments for, and drafting, our motion to dismiss. I pored through the complaint, identified seven strong arguments and drafted the motion. The senior partner on the case agreed that the arguments were all sound and well-reasoned, but advised that, to be effective, we needed to simplify and limit ourselves to our best three arguments. When we got the ruling back, the judge had addressed only one of those three arguments – in fact, we later filed a motion for reconsideration to raise the other two arguments!

This was a significant learning experience for me. I realized that while advocates must have a detailed and nuanced understanding of the securities laws, there is so much more to effective advocacy. And, while we of course need to present the arguments that have the greatest likelihood of success, we must also make strategic choices that take into account the audience and the long-term strategy of an early win or loss on a critical issue in the case.

LD: Is there a recent case you're particularly proud of?

AS: It’s hard to choose just one! I recently won a particularly satisfying decision in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a gold mining company, Kirkland Lake Gold, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety. That ruling was the first substantive decision in the 2nd Circuit to apply the legal standards for rebutting price impact in securities class actions that was articulated by the Supreme Court in Arkansas Teachers Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs ­­– a landmark decision in 2021, where I was on the team that represented Goldman.

I’m also proud of an earlier appellate victory for Restaurant Brands International, where I secured the reversal of an order denying my client’s motion to dismiss a ’33 Act securities class action in New York state court – a very rare outcome. The appellate court found that alleged non-disclosures related to two long-term growth initiatives did not render my client’s SEC registration statement misleading by omission. My client was thrilled with the decision, so it was a very gratifying result.

I realized that while advocates must have a detailed and nuanced understanding of the securities laws, there is so much more to effective advocacy.

LD: What trends are you seeing in shareholder class actions these days?

AS: Post-Goldman, class certification in securities class actions continues to be hotly contested.

In Goldman, the Supreme Court addressed securities class actions alleging price maintenance – i.e. the theory that a company’s misstatements can “prop up” or “maintain” artificial inflation in the stock price. Where there is a “mismatch” between the alleged misstatements and the alleged corrective disclosure, it undermines the plaintiffs’ argument that the back-end price decline can serve as a proxy for the amount of front-end inflation. Under Goldman, that mismatch and related economic evidence is important evidence relevant to rebutting price impact, which courts must consider at the certification stage. Following this decision, defendants are equipped with new tools to challenge certification – and even if a defendant lost the motion to dismiss, the certification stage now presents a real opportunity for defendants to limit or even eliminate the class-wide exposure presented by the case.

LD: What lessons did you learn in your SDNY clerkship that you're still using today?

AS: I gained invaluable experience during my clerkship with U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, including improvement in my writing and research skills and exposure to the many legal issues over which our federal courts preside. Perhaps most practically, on a day-to-day basis, I think back to my clerkship any time I’m in a dispute with an adversary – especially a discovery dispute – and work hard to avoid disputes unless disagreements with adversaries are truly intractable.

But most importantly, I benefited from the one-on-one mentorship of my clerkship; 22 years later, Judge Buchwald remains the gold standard to which I aspire professionally and personally. I would encourage all junior lawyers to seek out the kind of mentorship that a clerkship provides.

LD: Why did you decide to join Paul, Weiss, and what's kept you there your whole career? What do you enjoy about being part of the firm?

AS: What attracted me to Paul, Weiss is the strength and depth of our Litigation Department – it is second to none. What keeps me here is the people. It’s incredibly gratifying to work with my talented colleagues to help our clients with their most threatening legal challenges.

I was fortunate to find more mentors at the firm, including the nation’s foremost securities litigators, who pushed me to continue to develop this practice. And the firm is also incredibly supportive of working mothers with its flexible work arrangements, among other policies. This certainly contributed to my career success as my family grew.

LD: You're active with board service for several nonprofit legal providers and in Paul, Weiss's community outreach and pro bono programs. Why is it important to you to give back?

AS: Civic engagement is a part of our culture at Paul, Weiss, and that is part of what drew me to the firm. I have always felt that it’s our responsibility as lawyers to use our skills and the resources at our disposal to help underserved communities. Paul, Weiss provides an amazing platform from which to do that, and it’s been a great honor to help lead the firm’s storied pro bono program as co-chair of our Public Matters Committee.

I’ve worked on a wide variety of pro bono matters over the years, but family justice is a cause particularly close to my heart. Each year in New York City, thousands of families are subject to unlawful practices by the child welfare system. I’m proud to represent clients who, along with our nonprofit partners, are pursuing litigation that will help protect families and parents’ rights, including the rights to appointed counsel and to be free from unlawful home searches.