{ Comments on this entry are closed }
-
Securities Fraud Class Actions
If you purchased shares of a publicly traded company trusting that the marketplace had properly valued the stock based on the complete mix of information available, and it later turns out that the price you paid for your stock was inflated because the company was dishonest about important adverse information, or hid such information, and the price of the company's stock goes down significantly, you may be a member of a defrauded class of shareholders, eligible to pursue a class action claim under federal securities laws to recover your losses. A class action claim for securities fraud may be brought by ...
Shareholder Derivative Actions
Corporate Governance Claims for breach of fiduciary duty typically arise when a company's directors and officers cause the company to violate the law, exposing the company to criminal or civil penalties, massive losses, and to damaging litigation, such as securities fraud class actions. The fiduciary duties owed to a corporation by its directors and officers include the duties of due care and loyalty, and require directors and officers to obey the law (and cause the corporation to obey the law). No director or officer may seize a corporate opportunity for personal gain without giving the corporation the chance to take full advantage of ...
Antitrust Litigation
If you live in California and you paid too much for a product because the company that manufactured that product, or the company that sold you the product, conspired to fix prices for that product, you may be eligible to bring a class action case on behalf of all purchasers of the product seeking to recover your losses and to punish the wrongdoers with hefty treble damage penalties. California, and more than 20 other states, permit consumers to sue manufacturers for antitrust violations, including price fixing. In the other states consumers may not sue a party for an antitrust violation unless ...
Employment Wage and Hour Cases
The firm handles all types of wage and hour litigation in both federal and state courts. Wage and hour litigation can involve employees who are improperly misclassified as exempt from state or federal laws requiring overtime pay, employees who are forced to work "off the clock," and employees who are not provided meal and rest breaks as required under state and federal law. It can also involve workers who are misclassified by their employers as independent contractors, when in fact those workers are really employees who are being improperly charged for the costs of their employers' ordinary business expenses, and ...
Consumer Fraud
If you purchased a product or service that was falsely advertised, or sold using 'bait and switch', or other unfair or illegal business practices, you may be eligible to bring a class action for consumer fraud. If your business has suffered as a result of unfair competition from its competitors, you may also be eligible to bring a claim. These cases are brought with the assistance of experienced class action counsel, who will bear the costs of prosecuting the case and apply for a fee, to be approved by the court, only upon the successful conclusion of the case. Any settlement of a ...
Defective Product Class Actions
If you purchased a product and it was defective, you may be eligible to bring a class action against the manufacturer, distributor or retailer, on behalf of a class of purchasers. These cases are brought on behalf of a group suffering substantially identical economic damages, and not to recover damages for physical injury, pain and suffering or other unique harm. These cases are brought with the assistance of experienced class action counsel, who will bear the costs of prosecuting the case and apply for a fee, to be approved by the court, only upon the successful conclusion of the case. Any settlement of ...
The Schubert firm and co-lead counsel obtained a judgment of $2.9 billion against Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth Corporation (HLS), in a shareholder derivative suit brought on HealthSouth’s behalf. After an eleven day non-jury trial, Judge Allwin E. Horn, III, an Alabama Circuit Court judge, found that Scrushy knew and participated in a massive accounting fraud and consciously and willfully breached his fiduciary duties as HealthSouth’s CEO.
» Read Judge Horn’s entire opinion.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
United States District Judge James Ware, of the Northern District of California, appointed the Schubert firm lead counsel in a class action brought on behalf of internet advertisers participating in Google Inc.’s (GOOG) AdWords Program. The complaint alleges that despite Google’s claims that it was placing ads on high quality sites targeted for the advertisers’ products or services, many of the ads were placed on low quality, content-less parked domains and error pages.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
On March 3, 2010, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court upheld the shareholder derivative complaint alleging over $615 million in insider trading by the Board of Directors of Toll Brothers Inc. (TOL), a large luxury home builder. In upholding the complaint, the Court rejected each of defendants’ arguments, finding that the complaint stated sufficient facts to excuse a pre-suit demand on the Board, that the case was timely filed, and that the insider trading claims were viable. The Court soundly rejected defendants’ arguments that Delaware’s leading insider trading precedent, Brophy v. Cities Service Co., 70 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 1949) was outdated and should be overruled.
» Read the full opinion, Pfeiffer v. Toll, 989 A.2d 683 (Del. Ch. 2010).
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
The Schubert Firm is co-counsel in the settlement of an alleged options backdating fraud by Juniper Networks, Inc. (JNPR). The complaint alleged claims that Juniper fraudulently backdated stock options, in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The $169 Million settlement is subject to approval by United States District Judge James J. Ware of the Northern District of California.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
The Schubert Firm as co-derivative counsel helped obtain a $205 million settlement in a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC). The complaint alleged that MMC, the world’s largest insurance broker, failed to adequately disclose to its clients that it was paid contingent commissions to steer insurance business to favored insurance companies. When these practices were revealed, MMC agreed to pay huge fines, to the detriment of its shareholders.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
In upholding plaintiff’s shareholder derivative complaint against a former i2 Technologies, Inc. (ITWO) officer, Delaware Chancellor William Chandler ruled that plaintiff had adequately alleged that the Board’s negligence in approving the sale of a subsidiary to the officer demonstrated that its actions were not a valid exercise of its business judgment. The Chancellor then held that officers owe their corporations identical fiduciary duties as do directors.
» Read the full opinion, McPadden v. Sidhu, 964 A.2d 1262 (Del. Ch. 2008).
{ Comments on this entry are closed }