|
Noted Achievements
In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities Litigation Civil Action No. 02-cv-5571 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) PLAINTIFFS WIN JURY VERDICT IN SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTION AGAINST VIVENDI On January 29, 2010, the three month long securities fraud trial against Vivendi Universal, S.A., culminated with a jury verdict finding Vivendi liable for securities fraud on all 57 material misstatements. The Vivendi case is just one of nine securities class actions tried to verdict based on wrongs committed following the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995. The Hon. Richard J. Holwell, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over this litigation and the trial. Read More Wright v. Honeywell International Inc. Case No. 2008-423 (Vt. Sup. Ct.) VERMONT SUPREME COURT REVERSES LOWER COURT AND APPROVES CLASS CERTIFICATION In this indirect purchaser antitrust class action, Plaintiffs alleged that Honeywell, Inc. violated the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act when it engaged in deceptive tactics that created an unlawful monopoly and resulted in overcharges to purchasers of Honeywell's round thermostat. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the lower court's denial of class certification and cautioned against a lower court's premature determination of the merits. The Vermont Supreme Court opined that such a decision would deny a class of indirect consumers the opportunity to present their case to a jury since, as a practical matter, they would be unable to individually obtain relief for alleged antitrust violations. Opinion of The Vermont Supreme Court In re Laureate Education, Inc. Shareholder Litigation Case No. 24-C-07-000664 (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES DECISION OF TRIAL COURT In January 2007, Abbey Spanier and its co-counsel brought this case on behalf of holders of Laureate Education, Inc. ("Laureate" or the "Company") common stock challenging the decision of Laureate's Board of Directors (the "Board") to sell the Company to a consortium of private equity investors (defined herein as the "Investor Group") led by the Company's CEO and Chairman, Douglas Becker ("Becker"). Plaintiffs allege the Transaction and corresponding loss to shareholders resulted from the failure of the Board and management to act properly including by acting in bad faith, with improper motive, and without due care. The Board failed to conduct a proper market check as to the value of the Company such that the Transaction was advanced through an unfair process, for unfair consideration and in violation of the duties of the Board and management. Read More Friend v. The Hertz Corporation Case No. R G07344896 (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES IN HERTZ CORP. v. FRIEND - CREATING A "NERVE CENTER TEST" On November 10, 2009, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case concerning diversity jurisdiction. The question presented involved what was the proper test for determining a corporation's "principal place of business" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Read More Fensterstock v. Education Finance Partners Case No. 08-cv-3622 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.) MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DENIED On March 24, 2009, United States District Judge Thomas P. Griesa denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, in Fensterstock v. Education Finance Partners, No. 08-cv-3622 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.). Read More Braun and Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Case Nos. 3127 and 3757 (Pa. Ct. C.P., Philadelphia Co.) PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS OBTAIN SIGNIFICANT JURY VERDICT AND COURT AWARD AGAINST WAL-MART Plaintiffs in this class action on behalf of 186,000 current and former hourly employees obtained a $78 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart and an express finding that Wal-Mart did not act in good faith in failing to pay class members for missed rest breaks and off the clock work. On October 3, 2007, Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein ordered Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to pay an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages to 124,506 current and former Pennsylvania employees of the company from 2002 through May 2006 who were not paid when they worked during rest breaks. For more information regarding this case please go to the following website: www.walmartpaclassaction.com Iliadis, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. For more information regarding this case please go to the following website: www.walmartnjclassaction.com |
