{ Comments on this entry are closed }

On September 24, 2013, Judge Nancy Allf, Clark County Nevada District Judge, granted preliminary approval to shareholder derivative litigation filed by the Schubert Firm and co-counsel on behalf of Computer Sciences Corporation.

To view the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Actions, click here.

To view the Stipulation of Settlement, click here.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

On October 7, 2011, Judge Richard A. Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court granted final approval of the $3.6 million settlement in Herron, et al. v. Lark Creek Investment Management Company, et al., Case No. CGC-10-496342.  The Schubert Firm served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in the case.  Plaintiffs’ investments in the feeder fund Starlight, L.P., which invested nearly all of its assets with Bernie Madoff, were destroyed when Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was revealed in December 2008.  The complaint alleged that the feeder fund’s auditor was professionally negligent and breached its contract with the feeder fund in issuing “clean” audit opinions on the feeder fund’s financial statements between 2003 and 2007.  Pro rata payments to the Class Members are expected to be completed in December 2011.

Please visit the settlement website for more information:
http://starlightsettlement.com

{ 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 “search” and “content” sites targeted to the advertisers’ products or services, it instead placed many of the ads on low-quality, content-less parked domains and error pages.

On March 18, 2011, Judge Ware denied Google’s attempt to dismiss the case, finding that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a fraudulent business practices claim under California law. In reaching that decision, the Court noted that plaintiffs had alleged that, during the Class Period, Google placed AdWords ads on websites falling into one of three categories: (1) “Google.com” websites; (2) “Search Network” websites; and (3) “Content Network” websites, but did not tell its AdWords customers that, whether they chose to run their advertisements in the Search Network, Content Network, or both, Google would place their advertisements on low-quality “parked domains” and “error pages.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs adequately alleged that, because of Google’s conduct, they “expended money on advertising that they would not otherwise have spent.”

For more information about this case, please read Redacted Third Amended Complaint (full version filed under seal).

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The Alabama Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by former HealthSouth Corporation CEO Richard Scrushy, who sought reversal of a $2.9 billion judgment obtained 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, previously found that Mr. Scrushy knew and participated in a massive accounting fraud, labeling Mr. Scrushy as “the CEO of the fraud.” Judge Horn found that Mr. Scrushy consciously and willfully breached his fiduciary duties as HealthSouth’s CEO. The Schubert firm is co-lead counsel in the case.

» Read Judge Horn’s entire opinion.
» Read the Alabama Supreme Court opinion.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

On May 16, 2011, Judge Richard A. Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court granted final approval of the settlement in Gewalt v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. CGC-07-469792. The Schubert Firm served as Class Counsel in the case. The complaint alleged that the defendants deceptively advertised and failed to honor their promises to rebate the price of modems that were purchased by California customers in conjunction with DSL service from AT&T, in violation of California law. In response to this case, AT&T has already paid over $3.5 million to over 69,000 California AT&T customers. The settlement provided for a claims process for all remaining unpaid and late rebate payments on DSL modems to California AT&T customers. Over 25,000 persons submitted claim forms, and payments to the Class Members are expected to be completed in September 2011.

Please visit the settlement website for more information.

{ 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.

» Read the Settlement Notice.

{ 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 }