image description

Justin J. DeCamp


Justin J. DeCamp

New York +1-212-558-4000+1-212-558-4000 +1-212-558-3588+1-212-558-3588
[email protected]

Justin J. DeCamp is a partner in the Firm’s Litigation Group. Mr. DeCamp’s practice focuses on the representation of financial institutions in securities litigation and regulatory investigations. He has represented clients in a broad range of litigation in federal and state courts and in government and self-regulatory organization investigations in the United States and abroad, including under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and relating to complex structured financial products. He also has represented clients in commercial and securities arbitrations, contractual and merger disputes, and matters involving tax, investment company, antitrust, corporate succession, and constitutional issues.

Co-author, Bank Litigation, Chapter 68 of Commercial Litigation in New York State Courts (West, 4th Ed., 2015)

New York Super Lawyers (2014, 2015)


  • Represented a major financial institution in its settlement resolving the New York Attorney General's potential claims regarding its sale of residential mortgage-backed securities in the lead-up to the financial crisis.
  • Represented an international financial institution in investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into the institution’s valuations and disclosures relating to financial instruments backed by residential subprime mortgages.  After a lengthy investigation, the SEC formally terminated the investigation without recommending any charges.  
  • Representing an international financial institution in an investigation by DOJ under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act relating to sales of residential mortgage-backed securities.
  • Representing a Swiss bank participating under Category 2 of the U.S. Department of Justice Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements and Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks.  
  • Representing an international financial institution in an SEC investigation under the FCPA relating to hiring practices in China and Hong Kong.
  • Representing an investment bank in investigations by the SEC, DOJ and Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program into marketing practices for residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities.
  • Representing an investment bank in an investigation by FINRA and various self-regulatory organizations relating to alleged options market manipulation.
  • Represented an investment bank in an investigation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission relating to valuation of natural gas calendar spread options.
  • Represented an international financial institution in an investigation by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations relating to the use of basket options transactions by hedge funds.
  • Represented an international financial institution in investigations by the SEC and the U.K. Financial Services Authority relating to the structuring and marketing of collateralized debt obligations.
  • Represented UBS AG and affiliates in numerous federal and state court litigations relating to sales of collateralized debt obligations, including a case recently dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds by the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division, with the dismissal affirmed on appeal, and a case dismissed with prejudice by the United States District Court (S.D. Fla.) for failure to state a claim. 
  • Represented UBS AG and members of its supervisory board and senior management in a putative securities class action after UBS’s market capitalization declined by nearly $115 billion, following disclosures of UBS’s subprime and auction rate securities losses and its DOJ and SEC settlements relating to U.S. cross-border tax issues.  The United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) dismissed all claims with prejudice, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in May 2014.
  • Represented an investment bank in litigations brought by various companies alleging that prime brokerage firms manipulated the market for those companies’ stock by intentionally failing to deliver shares sufficient to settle short positions entered into by the defendants’ clients.