Print only version of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Logo
Photo of Steven L. Bloch

Steven L. Bloch

Partner

(203) 325-4491
Fax: (203) 325-3769
sbloch@sgtlaw.com

Steven L. Bloch is a partner at Silver Golub & Teitell and a leader of the firm's Class Action and Complex Civil Litigation practice groups. Steven represents pension and retirement funds, institutional investors, governmental entities, union funds and Taft-Hartley funds, businesses, and individuals in the litigation of class actions and direct actions involving financial services, insurance, healthcare, antitrust, securities, employee benefits, data privacy and consumer fraud. In addition, Steven has a wide range of complex commercial litigation experience involving corporate disputes, civil RICO, business torts, banking and credit instruments, real estate, and labor and employment.

Representative matters in a leading role:

  • AllianzGI Structured Alpha Mutual Fund Litigation. Settlement on behalf of a certified class of investors in a series of mutual funds managed by Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC alleging violations of the Securities Act based on AllianzGI’s failure to follow its stated investment strategy and risk management protocols. (Jackson v. Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Index No. 651233/2021) ($145 million)      
  • AllianzGI Structured Alpha Hedge Fund Litigation. Confidential settlements on behalf of investors in hedge funds managed by Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC alleging that AllianzGI failed to failure to follow its stated investment strategy and risk management protocols in breach of its duties and obligations to investors. (Retirement Program for Employees of the Town of Fairfield, et al v. Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, S.D.N.Y., Case No. 20-cv-5817; In re AllianzGI Structured Alpha Class Action Litigation, S.D.N.Y., Case No. 20-cv-07154)   
  • Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al. Settlement on behalf of a certified class of investors alleging violations of the Exchange Act and state laws against Goldman Sachs in structuring and marketing collateralized debt obligations. (Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al., S.D.N.Y., Case No. 10-cv-07497) ($27.5 million)
  • Spencer v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. Settlement on behalf of a certified class involving claims of civil RICO and fraud against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and affiliates concerning The Hartford’s structured settlement practices. (Spencer v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., D. Conn., Case No. 05-cv-1681) ($72.5 million)
  • Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell. Settlement on behalf of a certified class of policyholders against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company arising out of Nationwide’s practices in connection with statutorily-required optional levels of underinsured (UIM) and uninsured (UM) motorist coverage under automobile insurance policies. (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell, West Virginia Circuit Court, Roane County, Case No. 00-C-37) ($75 million).
  • Smith v. Collinsworth et al. Settlement on behalf of a certified class of policyholders against United American Ins. Co. and its affiliates and agents concerning the sale of limited benefit health insurance. (Smith v. Collinsworth et al., Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, Case No. CV2004-72-2) ($30 million).
  • Becker v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus and AFLAC, Inc. Settlement on behalf of a certified class of policyholders against AFLAC, Inc. concerning AFLAC’s adjustment practices and limited benefits under supplemental disability income policies. (Becker v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus and AFLAC, Inc., D.S.C., Case No. 05-2101) ($7 million).

Current matters, in a leading role:

  • Hubbard et al. v. Google et al. Action against Google LLC (“Google”) and YouTube LLC (“YouTube”), as well as children’s entertainment companies operating YouTube channels including Hasbro, Mattel, and Cartoon Network, alleging that children’s personal information was illegally collected, stored, analyzed, and used for targeted advertising purposes to influence and manipulate children’s behavior. (Hubbard et al. v. Google et al., N.D. Cal., Case No. 5:19-cv-07016)
  • In re EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litigation. Litigating as part of a committee of firms with interim co-lead counsel representing a putative class of direct purchasers against a brand manufacturer and the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers, alleging violations of RICO and the antitrust laws predicated on inflation of EpiPen prices. (In re EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litigation, D. Minn., Case No. 20-cv-00827)
  • Zaluda et al. v. Apple Inc. Action against Apple alleging Apple’s Siri voice assistant creates, collects, stores, and uses the voiceprints of Apple device users without consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/, et seq. (Zaluda et al. v. Apple Inc., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Case No. 2019-CH-11771)
  • Underwood et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc. et al. Interim co-lead counsel on behalf of putative classes of users of Coinbase Global, Inc.’s digital asset trading platform, alleging violations of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and state laws for operating as an unlicensed securities exchange and an unlicensed broker-dealer. (Underwood et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc. et al., S.D.N.Y., No. 21-cv-08353)
  • Little et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc. et al. Interim co-lead counsel in action against Unilever United States, Inc. and its manufacturers and suppliers on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of consumer products alleging that the products were contaminated with the carcinogen benzene. (Little et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc. et al., D. Conn., Case No 3:22-cv-01189)

Representative complex litigation matters:

  • Successful prosecution of an action by a credit card issuing bank involving RICO claims against an online service provider and its merchant bank for improper transactions, resulting in a substantial settlement.
  • Successful prosecution of an action involving the sale of a healthcare software program to a venture capital-backed acquisition company, resulting in a substantial settlement.
  • Successful prosecution of squeeze-out claims by minority shareholder in a cable communications company, resulting in a substantial settlement.
  • Establishing liability in a case of first impression under UCC Article 8 against lender/clearing bank based on collusion with securities broker-dealer.
  • Successful defense and settlement (for a nominal sum) of an action by a major credit card network against a card issuing bank, avoiding enforcement of a long-term contract predicated on anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act.
  • Successful defense and settlement (for a nominal sum) of an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against a food equipment manufacturer alleging unfair competition and misappropriation of proprietary information and trade secrets.
  • Successful defense of an action for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin construction of a parking garage facility based on claims of interference with easement, real property rights, and contractual rights.
  • Successful defense and dismissal on summary judgment of a multi-million-dollar claim seeking shareholder compensation, profits, and retirement benefits under a corporate shareholder agreement.
  • Successful prosecution of multiple actions by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner on behalf of insurers in insolvency and liquidation proceedings.

Contact Us

Contact our experienced attorneys today at (203) 325-4491 or info@sgtlaw.com to arrange a free, confidential consultation.

Offices & Directions