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, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Chapter of Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts (5th Ed., Vol. 1, 2021)
Co-author, Bank Litigation, Chapter 68 of Commercial Litigation in New York State Courts (West, 4th Ed., 2015)

New York Super Lawyers (2014, 2015)


  • Counsel to UBS in litigation brought by the DOJ under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act relating to sales of residential mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
  • Counsel to an international financial institution in SEC investigations 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.
  • Counsel to an international financial institution in a lengthy SEC investigation under the FCPA relating to hiring practices in China and Hong Kong, which the SEC formally terminated without recommending any charges.
  • Counsel to UBS 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.
  • Counsel to Standard Chartered Bank (Switzerland) in successfully obtaining a non-prosecution agreement from the DOJ in connection with the DOJ’s tax-related Program for Swiss Banks.  
  • Counsel to 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. The investigations were concluded without any charging recommendations.
  • Counsel to an investment bank in an investigation by FINRA and various self-regulatory organizations relating to alleged options market manipulation.
  • Counsel to an investment bank in an investigation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission relating to valuation of natural gas calendar spread options.
  • Counsel to 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.
  • Counsel to 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.
  • Counsel to UBS Group AG, certain affiliates, and individual director defendants in a civil shareholder derivative action filed in New York Supreme Court alleging that UBS board members violated their fiduciary duties under Swiss law. In December 2021, the court dismissed the complaint based on the forum selection clause in UBS’s articles of association.
  • Counsel to UBS in litigations relating to sales of collateralized debt obligations, including cases 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. 
  • Counsel to UBS in a putative securities class action after UBS’s market capitalization declined by nearly $115 billion, following disclosures of subprime and other losses. 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.
  • Counsel to 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.
  • Counsel to natural resources companies in connection with litigation and arbitration of contractual disputes.