taft hartley

50 %
50 %
Information about taft hartley
News-Reports

Published on August 21, 2007

Author: Freedom

Source: authorstream.com

Slide1:  A Presentation to the Trustees and Administrators of Taft-Hartley Funds San Francisco New York Washington, D.C. Beverly Hills Nashville Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP Bruce W. Leppla 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 956-1000, x3381 bleppla@lchb.com Slide2:  Table of Contents Executive Summary Securities Litigation – Why Get Involved? LCHB’s Securities Litigation Services Overview of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP LCHB’s Securities Litigation Expertise Appendix LCHB’s Institutional Investor Clients LCHB Recoveries over $100 million since 1992 Slide3:  Executive Summary Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP ('LCHB') is honored to present its securities litigation qualifications to the trustees and administrators of Taft-Hartley funds. Securities Litigation and Related Services LCHB offers the following services:         Securities Litigation and Investment Portfolio Monitoring Taft-Hartley Fund Securities Litigation Policy Advice Corporate Governance and Reform Advice Securities Litigation Services – Class Actions and Direct Actions         Slide4:  Securities Litigation – Why Get Involved? Meet Fiduciary Responsibilities Taft-Hartley Fund Trustees are Fiduciaries. In 1998, the United States Department of Labor took the following position: Control the Litigation By serving as lead plaintiff, your fund has control over important strategic decisions including who to sue, where to sue, which claims to bring, and whether to settle a case or bring it to trial. Amicus Curiae in Support of the Florida State Board of Administration’s Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Bragdon v. Telxon Corporation, 98-cv-2876 (N.D. Ohio). 'Not only is a fiduciary not prohibited from serving as a lead plaintiff, the Secretary believes that a fiduciary has an affirmative duty to determine whether it would be in the interest of the plan participants to do so . . . [It] may not only be prudent to initiate litigation, but also a breach of a fiduciary’s duty not to pursue a valid claim . . . This position arises out of ERISA’s prudence requirement, which encompasses 'several narrower duties which have evolved under the law of trusts' including 'the duty to take reasonable steps to realize on claims held in trust.'1 Slide5:  Securities Litigation – Why Get Involved? Improve Your Fund’s Financial Performance Securities Class Action Litigation since Adoption of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Since passage of the PSLRA in 1995, 2,188 securities class action cases have been filed in the United States seeking recovery of investment losses in equities, fixed income instruments, mutual funds, and other securities.1 Through December 2003, 503 securities class action cases have been resolved, returning more than $12.7 billion back to investors who have lost money due to securities and financial fraud.2 Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. Post-Reform Act Securities Lawsuits: Settlements Reported through December 2003, Cornerstone Research, 2004. Authors: Laura E. Simmons, Ph.D. and Ellen M. Ryan, M.B.A. Cases that have involved Taft-Hartley Funds and other institutions serving as lead plaintiffs have recovered higher than average amounts. Research indicates that the presence of an institutional investor as lead plaintiff is associated with an increase in settlement size.2 Slide6:  Corporate Governance Reforms Securities class action litigation presents an opportunity to effect corporate governance changes. Certain factors such as the composition of a company’s board of directors, levels executive compensation and audit standards have been proven to directly correlate to the success of a company. Institutional Shareholder Services1 found that companies with poor corporate governance had, on average: Lower Stock Returns Lower Return on Assets, Equity and Investment Higher Share Price Volatility Lower Price-to-Book Ratios Less Interest Coverage Lower Operating Cash Flow to Current Liabilities Lower Dividend Payouts and Lower Dividend Yields The quality of your investments can improve as a direct result of changes in corporate governance standards brought about by securities class action litigation. Corporate Governance Study: The Correlation between Corporate Governance and Company Performance, Institutional Shareholder Services, 2004. Author: Lawrence D. Brown, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Accountancy, Georgia State University. Securities Litigation – Why Get Involved? Slide7:  Excessive Executive Compensation In 2003, CEO’s of Sandamp;P 500 companies had total average annual pay packages of $9,145,672, consisting primarily of large cash and stock option and restricted stock grants.1 Compare this with the median household income in the United States in 2003 of $43,318.2 Based on these statistics, the average CEO of an Sandamp;P 500 company makes more money in two calendar days than the average American household makes in an entire year. In many securities class action cases, corporate executives have been selling their stock at the same time that union pension funds, company employees and others have been buying theirs. Some companies even arrange to buy-back their own stock at the same time that corporate officers are selling their stock. A New Corporate Governance World: From Confrontation to Constructive Dialogue, Institutional Shareholder Services, 2004. Author: Valerie Ho, Senior Analyst for Compensation and Benefits. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, United States Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, August, 2004. Securities Litigation – Why Get Involved? LCHB seeks to redress unlawful insider trading and selling. Slide8:  LCHB offers the following securities litigation services: Securities Litigation and Investment Portfolio Monitoring Free Service: LCHB will monitor your investment portfolio to determine whether your Fund has suffered a loss in a case where there is apparent securities fraud or similar misconduct. Taft-Hartley Securities Litigation Policy Advice Free Service: LCHB will consult with your Board of Trustees to assist in establishing an appropriate securities litigation policy. Corporate Governance and Reform Advice Free Service: LCHB will consult with your Board of Trustees to assist in implementing appropriate corporate governance reforms in litigations where this is a Fund objective. Securities Litigation Services -- Class or Direct Actions LCHB, assisted by Sugarman Susskind, P.A., will litigate on your behalf in appropriate securities cases. All costs are advanced by LCHB, not your Fund, and legal fees are payable only in the event of a recovery. LCHB’s Securities Litigation Services Slide9:  Introducing Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP is the nation’s third largest 'plaintiffs-only' law firm, with over 60 lawyers in 5 cities: San Francisco, Beverly Hills, New York City, Washington, D.C. and Nashville, TN. LCHB has recovered over $25 billion for clients in the last 25 years in 8 practice areas: antitrust; aviation disasters; consumer fraud, including dangerous and/or defective products; employment discrimination and unlawful employment practices; ERISA violations; environmental damage and toxic exposures; human and civil rights abuses; and securities and investment fraud. LCHB has served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in over 250 class actions nation-wide. In the last 12 years LCHB has achieved 23 trial verdicts or settlements in excess of $100 million.   LCHB conducts litigation with a social purpose. We are committed to the redress of corporate misconduct, to achieve justice for employees, consumers and investors, and to protect our environment and human rights worldwide. LCHB litigates in every federal district in the United States, as well as in the World Court and other international tribunals. LCHB’s international reach includes cases involving defendants from Switzerland to the Sudan.         Slide10:  Introducing Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP Major Trials and Settlements          LCHB has participated in some of the most important civil trials in the United States. LCHB: Served as co-counsel in the litigation arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil disaster, which resulted in a $4 billion verdict.         Represented Massachusetts, the Attorneys General of several states and 18 California cities and counties in the landmark anti-tobacco litigation against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other cigarette manufacturers. Served as co-counsel in a trial against State Farm Insurance Co. and obtained a judgment of over $1 billion, which was the largest judgment ever against a U.S. insurance company for violating its contract with policyholders and committing consumer fraud. Served as co-counsel in litigation to recover over $6 billion in assets taken from Holocaust victims and survivors. Spearheaded the effort by California consumers and businesses to seek restitution from El Paso Natural Gas Corporation for manipulating the market for natural gas pipeline transmission capacity during the California energy crisis. Represented 25,000 female employees and applicants for employment with Home Depot who alleged gender discrimination. In 1998, the court approved a $87.5 million settlement and Home Depot agreed to modify its hiring, promotion and compensation practices. Slide11:  LCHB attorneys are frequently honored for their litigation expertise and commitment to social justice. Awards include: The American Bar Association’s Spirit of Excellence Award U.S. Department of Justice’s John Randolph Distinguished Service Award Anti-Defamation League’s Pearlstein Civil Rights Award Anti-Defamation League’s Distinguished Jurisprudence Award         Consumer Attorneys of California’s Presidential Award of Merit Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Achievement Award Introducing Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP Additionally, LCHB attorneys are frequently named to lists of attorneys compiled by legal publications, including: California Daily Journal’s '100 Most Influential Lawyers' National Law Journal‘s '100 Most Influential Lawyers in America' National Law Journal‘s '40 Most Influential Women Lawyers' Law andamp; Politics’ 'Super Lawyers'         Northern California Recorder’s 'Top Plaintiff’s Securities Litigation Attorney' Slide12:  Introducing Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP LCHB received the 1998 Navigator of Civil Rights Award presented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. LCHB has endowed a Chair of Human Rights at the Columbia University School of Law. LCHB’s founder (Robert L. Lieff) serves on Columbia University’s Committee on Corporate Governance. LCHB supports the National Association for Public Interest Law; the San Francisco Bay Area Minority Law Student Scholarship Program; the NOW Legal Defense Fund in New York, the Employment Law Center in San Francisco, and the East Bay Community Law Center, as well as many other worthy programs.  LCHB enjoys a national reputation for professional integrity. LCHB was selected in 2003 and 2004 by the National Law Journal as one of the top plaintiff’s firms in the country. As stated by United States District Judge William H. Alsup, LCHB is 'one of the foremost law firms in the country in both securities law and class actions.' LCHB proudly supports the goals of the labor union movement: for over 30 years, we have fought for civil rights and justice, human rights, increased access to legal services, and fair and just wages, working conditions and benefits for working people everywhere.  Slide13:  LCHB’s Securities Litigation Expertise National Reputation For Prosecuting Securities Cases       Since our founding in 1972, LCHB has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class action lawsuits, direct actions and derivative litigations on behalf of public and private institutional and individual investors. LCHB has advised investors with regard to securities litigation matters relating to breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, breach of contract and similar claims. As noted in 2001 by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in approving a settlement in the In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation:       '[T]he class was well served at a good price by excellent counsel . . . We have class counsel who's one of the most foremost law firms in the country in both securities law and class actions. And they have a very excellent reputation for the conduct of these kinds of cases and their experience and views on whether its worth the candle to go any further means a lot.'  Slide14:  Experience in Representing Public Funds LCHB has been selected by the NYC Law Department, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, CalPERS (1999-2002), CalSTRS, the Los Angeles County Employees’ Retirement Association ('LACERA') and the States of Alaska and Hawaii to serve as special securities litigation counsel. LCHB also consults regularly on securities litigation matters with, and/or provides case evaluations on significant cases to, the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, the Regents of the University of California, the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, the Teachers’ Retirement System of Texas, the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System and the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System. LCHB’s Securities Litigation Expertise Slide15:  Demonstrated Success in Obtaining Trial Victories in Securities Class Actions In 2002, LCHB represented the investors in Claghorn v. Edsaco, Ltd., a federal securities fraud class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs, former shareholders in Scorpion Technologies, Inc., alleged that Edsaco aided Scorpion in setting up phony European companies as part of a scheme in which Scorpion reported fictitious sales of its software to these companies, thereby inflating its earnings. The jury found for the plaintiffs and returned a $171 million verdict for the plaintiffs, one of the largest jury verdicts in the U.S. in 2002. In the In re FPI/Agretech Securities Litigation, LCHB Partner Richard M. Heimann successfully tried a securities class action on behalf of a nationwide plaintiff class against accounting firm Ernst andamp; Young, obtaining a $25-plus million verdict (including $10 million in punitive damages) plus costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. LCHB’s Securities Litigation Expertise Slide16:  Demonstrated Success at Achieving Recoveries that are a High Percentage of Losses In the In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation and the Scorpion Technologies/Edsaco cases, LCHB recovered almost 100% of the class losses. These results compare favorably to the 4.4% median result for such suits overall since 1995, and 3.3% in 2003.1 Demonstrated Success at Achieving Recoveries from the Personal Assets of Individual Defendants In the In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation, LCHB obtained 1,000,000 shares from the former Chairman and CEO, and smaller amounts from four other officers. LCHB won a $188 million verdict against the former CEO and CFO of Media Vision, in addition to earlier verdicts against former officers, directors, accountants and underwriters of the company. Demonstrated Success at Achieving Recoveries from Auditor Defendants LCHB has demonstrated success at achieving recoveries from auditor defendants: $18 million from Arthur Young in FPI Agretech; $15 million from Ernest andamp; Young and $1.1 million from Coopers andamp; Lybrand in MediaVision; $5.5 million from Grant Thornton in Scorpion; and $4 million from Coopers andamp; Lybrand in California Micro Devices. LCHB’s Securities Litigation Expertise Post-Reform Act Securities Lawsuits: Settlements Reported through December 2003, Cornerstone Research, 2004. Authors: Laura E. Simmons, Ph.D. and Ellen M. Ryan, M.B.A. Slide17:  The following table lists institutional investors for whom LCHB has served as securities litigation counsel during the last five years, accompanied by a brief description of the services provided: Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation/ Alaska Office of the Attorney General LCHB is representing the Alaska State Department of Revenue, the Alaska State Pension Investment Board and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation in an action against America Online, Inc., Time Warner, Inc. and other defendants pending in the Superior Court in the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Case No. 1JU-04-503 CIV Barclays Global Investors, N.A. LCHB filed an amicus curiae brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Barclays in In re Copper Mountain Networks Securities Litigation. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) LCHB filed an amicus curiae brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of CalPERS in In re Copper Mountain Networks Securities Litigation. In addition, LCHB has served in the pool of litigators to represent the Fund in securities litigation. California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) LCHB represented CalSTRS in In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation, achieving settlements totaling $26 million, which included substantial contributions by former corporate officers. LCHB’s Institutional Investor Clients Slide18:  Colorado Public Employee’s Retirement Association LCHB represented CalSTRS in In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation, achieving settlements totaling $26 million, which included substantial contributions by former corporate officers. Hawaii Employees’ Retirement System LCHB serves in the pool of litigators selected to represent the Employees Retirement System of Hawaii in securities litigation. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement System LCHB serves in the pool of litigators selected to represent the Los Angeles County Employees’ Retirement System in securities litigation. Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth, Inc.; Merrill Lynch Global Value Fund, Inc. LCHB is currently representing two Merrill Lynch mutual funds that have combined losses of more than $170 million in an individual (non-class) securities fraud action in California state court. Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Fund and Merrill Lynch Global Value Fund, Inc., v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., et al., No. 02-405792 (San Francisco Superior Ct.). LCHB’s Institutional Investor Clients Slide19:  New York City Law Department/ New York City Pension Funds LCHB serves in NYC’s pool of securities litigation and evaluation counsel. LCHB represented the New York City Pension Funds (the 'Funds') in their applications to serve as lead plaintiff in the McKesson and Enron national securities class action cases (Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. No. CV-99-20743 (N. D. Cal.); Newby v. Enron Corporation, No. CV-H-01-3624 (S.D. Texas). LCHB currently represents the Funds in the In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. Investment Litigation, No. 2:03-MD-1565-JLG-MRA (S.D. Ohio) and in a related claim against Citibank, N.A. New York State Common Retirement Fund LCHB serves in the pool of litigators selected to represent the New York State Common Retirement Fund in securities litigation. Resolution Collection Corporation of Japan LCHB represented the Resolution Collection Corporation of Japan, as successor-in-interest to the claims of Kofuku Bank, Namihaya Bank and Kita Hyogo Shinyo-Kumiai, in individual lawsuits against Republic New York Corp., Republic New York Bank and Republic New York Securities Corp. for alleged violations of federal securities and racketeering laws. In December 2001, the claims of LCHB’s clients and those of other investors were settled. As part of the settlement, LCHB’s clients received more than $50 million, which represents 100% of their investments less money they received in interest or other payments. LCHB’s Institutional Investor Clients Slide20:  The following is a list of the settlements and verdicts over the past eleven years valued at $100 million or greater in which Lieff Cabraser Heimann andamp; Bernstein, LLP participated, either as plaintiffs’ lead counsel or as co-counsel, and performed a significant role in the litigation. LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005 $206 Billion Settlement in Tobacco Litigation in federal and state courts nationwide LCHB represented attorneys general of Massachusetts, Louisiana and Illinois, several additional states, and 18 cities and counties in California in the litigation that resulted in the $206 billion settlement announced in November 1998 between the tobacco industry and the states’ attorneys general. In California alone, LCHB clients will receive an estimated $12.5 billion over the next 25 years. 2. $6 Billion in Settlements in Holocaust Cases LCHB served as settlement class co-counsel in the case against several Swiss banks that resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement in July 2000, and participated in multi-national negotiations that led to executive agreements between Germany and the United States establishing an additional $5 billion in funds for survivors and victims of Nazi persecution. The judicial decree approving these settlements is published at 105 F. Supp.2d 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ('Swiss Banks') and in In re Nazi Era Cases Against German Defendants Litigation, MDL No. 1337, 198 F.R.D. 429 (D.N.J. 2000). 3. $4.75 Billion Settlement in Fen-Phen Diet Drugs Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.) LCHB partner Elizabeth J. Cabraser served on the plaintiffs’ management committee which organized and directed the Fen-Phen diet drugs litigation filed across the nation in federal courts. LCHB continues to represent individuals pursuing personal injury claims. Slide21:  $4.25 Billion in Settlements in Silicone Gel Breast Implants Litigation, MDL No. 926 (N.D. Ala.) LCHB served on the plaintiffs’ steering committee and the five-member negotiating committee which achieved a $4.25 billion global settlement of the action. Thereafter, the settlement fund was reduced through a plan of reorganization to approximately $3.25 billion when defendant Dow withdrew from the settlement and sought bankruptcy protection. $4 Billion Verdict in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation (D. Alaska) LCHB served as one of the court-appointed plaintiffs’ class counsel representing over 1,700 commercial fishing claimants who won a class-wide jury verdict of over $4 billion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the $260 million compensatory damages verdict, but remanded the case to trial court to reconsider the punitive damages award. $3.3 Billion Verdict in ACC/Lincoln Savings Securities Litigation, MDL No. 834 (D. Ariz.) With co-counsel, LCHB participated in all phases of the prosecution of this action, and helped to obtain the class judgment of over $3.3 billion and settlements totaling over $250 million. $1.1 Billion Judgment in State Farm Imitation Auto Parts Litigation Illinois State Court LCHB served as plaintiffs’ class co-counsel in this action. The combined jury verdict/court judgment of $1.1 billion was the largest ever against a U.S. insurance company for consumer fraud. The appeals court rejected State Farm’s appeal, and the case is now before the Illinois Supreme Court. The judgment upheld on appeal included $600 million in judicially-imposed punitive damages. Nationwide class certification was also affirmed. The appellate decision is reported at 746 N.E.2d 1242 (Ill. App. 2001). LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005 Slide22:  $1.033 Billion Settlement in Sulzer Hip and Knee Implants Litigation, MDL No. 1401 (N.D. Ohio) LCHB spearheaded the opposition to an initial settlement offer by Sulzer that was deficient, and played a significant role in creating a revised, court-approved settlement valued at more than $1 billion. LCHB partner Richard M. Heimann was named to the court-appointed committee advising on attorneys’ fees. $1 Billion in Settlements in First Capital Holdings Corporation Litigation, MDL No. 901 (C.D. Cal.) LCHB helped recover damages sustained by policyholders of First Capital Life Insurance Company and Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company resulting from the insurance companies’ allegedly fraudulent investment practices and the manipulation of financial statements. California state and federal courts jointly certified the class and approved the settlements. Up to $1 Billion in Settlement in Masonite Hardboard Siding Litigation, Alabama State Court LCHB served as class co-counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of 4 million homeowners with defective hardboard siding on their homes that resulted in a favorable class action trial verdict and subsequent settlement valued at $350 million-$1 billion for certain costs of repair and replacement of failing Masonite hardboard siding. $950 Million in Settlement in Polybutylene Litigation, Obion County, Tennessee LCHB served as class counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of approximately 6 million owners of property equipped with defective polybutylene plumbing systems and yard service lines. Chancellor Maloon of Obion County, Tennessee, presided over the case, certified the class for trial purposes, and approved the settlement. LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005 Slide23:  12. $723 Million in Settlements in Brand Name Prescription Drugs Litigation, N.D. Ill. LCHB served as class counsel for tens of thousands of retail pharmacies in litigation against the leading pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers of brand name prescription drugs for alleged price-fixing from 1989 to 1995. $500+ Million in Settlement in Louisiana-Pacific Inner-Seal Siding Litigation, D. Oregon LCHB served as co-lead class counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of homeowners with defective exterior siding on their homes. Over 155,000 claims have been paid in the multi-year settlement program, exceeding $500 million in payments to date. $180 Million Settlement in the General Chemical Richmond Works Cases, California State Coordinated Proceedings LCHB served as co-lead and co-liaison counsel representing residents of Richmond, California who were exposed to a sulfuric acid mist when the General Chemical Company overheated a railcar containing oleum, causing a massive release of sulfur trioxide into the atmosphere. $171 Million Verdict in Claghorn v. Edsaco Ltd., N.D. Cal. In April 2002, the federal jury returned a $170.7 million verdict against Edsaco Ltd, finding that Edsaco helped set up phony European companies as part of a scheme to defraud U.S. investors in a high tech company. Included in the jury verdict, the fourth largest in the U.S. in 2002, was $165 million in punitive damages. LCHB partner Richard M. Heimann conducted the trial for plaintiffs. LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005 Slide24:  16. $150 Million in Settlements in Synthroid Marketing Litigation, MDL No. 1182 (N.D. Ill.) LCHB served as one of the consumer class counsel in combined settlements of consumers and health plans’ drug overcharge claims approved after class certification for trial purposes. Reported decisions include 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001); 201 F. Supp.2d 861 (N.D. Ill. 2002); 110 F. Supp.2d 676 (N.D. Ill. 2000); 188 F.R.D. 295 (N.D. Ill. 1999). 17. $148 Million Settlement in California Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases, California State Court LCHB served as co-lead and co-liaison counsel representing a certified class of indirect purchasers (consumers) on claims against the major pharmaceutical manufacturers for alleged price fixing of prescription drugs sold to retail pharmacies. 18. $140 Million in Settlement in Cemwood Shakes Litigation, California State Court LCHB served as plaintiffs’ class co-counsel in this action. An estimated 30,000 owners of housing and other structures will receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund according to the size of their roofs for the repair of defective shingles. Settlements were obtain from a number of defendants, including Cemwood’s insurance carriers. 19. $1 Billion in In re Intel Pentium Processor Litigation, Master File No. 754729, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara LCHB, with co-counsel, obtained a class settlement on behalf of a nationwide class of users of Pentium processor-based personal computers, requiring Intel to correct defects in the floating point unit of the Pentium processor. As a part of the settlement, Intel agreed to offer corrected units for exchange. The settlement was valued in excess of $1 Billion based on the market penetration of the defective product and the requests for exchange. LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005 Slide25:  $136 Million in Settlement in Informix/Illustra Securities Litigation, N.D. Cal. LCHB represented Richard H. Williams, the former CEO of Illustra Information Technologies, Inc., and a class of Illustra shareholders in a securities fraud lawsuit arising out Informix Corporation’s purchase of Illustra. The global settlement, which included claims by shareholders in addition to the class we represented, was one of the largest ever against a high tech company in a securities fraud lawsuit. 21. $107.5 Million in Settlement in Behr Wood Sealant Products Litigation, California State Court LCHB served as co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of homeowners and other consumers who purchased and applied certain Behr wood sealant products, Super Liquid Raw-Hide or Natural Seal Plus, to exterior wood surfaces. In May 2003, the court granted final approval to a $107.5 million settlement to provide compensation for mildew damage to wood surfaces that Class members incurred. 22. $105 Million in Settlement in Providian Credit Card Cases, MDL No. 1301 (E.D. Pa.)/Cal. State Court LCHB served as co-lead counsel for Providian credit cardholders nationwide who alleged that Providian had engaged in widespread misconduct. The over $105 million settlement, combined with earlier settlement by government agencies, was one of the largest ever against a credit card bank for consumer fraud. The case was coordinated between the MDL court in Philadelphia and the California state court in San Francisco. LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005 Slide26:  $188 Million Judgment against the CEO and CFO of MediaVision, In re Media Vision Technology Securities Litigation, No. CV-94-1015 (N.D. Cal.) LCHB served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of a class of purchasers of securities in Media Vision, a high-tech company that declared bankruptcy in 1994 after press reports on 'phantom' sales of products. Based upon allegations that they were aware of and engaging in deceptive accounting, the Court has approved partial settlements totaling $31 million with Media Vision’s officers, accountants and underwriters. Despite the corporate bankruptcy, we pursued direct claims against Media Vision’s former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. Evidence that Lieff Cabraser developed in the civil case led prosecutors to commence an investigation and ultimately file criminal charges against the former CEO and CFO. The civil action was stayed pending criminal proceedings. After the convictions of the former CEO and CFO for securities fraud, the civil case resumed. In 2003, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the class against these two defendants in the amount of $188 million. LCHB Recoveries over $100 Million: 1992-2005

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Taft-Hartley-Gesetz – Wikipedia

Das Taft-Hartley-Gesetz (amtliche Bezeichnung: Labor-Management Relations Act) ist ein von US-Senator Robert A. Taft und dem Kongressabgeordneten Fred A ...
Read more

Taft-Hartley Act legal definition of Taft-Hartley Act

Taft-Hartley Act. Over President Harry S. Truman's Veto, zthe Taft-Hartley Act—which is also called the Labor-Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A ...
Read more

Taft-Hartley Labor Act - Infoplease

Taft-Hartley Labor Act, 1947, passed by the U.S. Congress, officially known as the Labor-Management Relations Act. Sponsored by Senator Robert
Read more

1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions | NLRB

The Taft-Hartley Act made major changes to the Wagner Act. Although Section 7 was retained intact in the revised law, new language was added to provide ...
Read more

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 - Wikipedia, the ...

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 29 U.S.C. § 401-531 better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, (80 H.R. 3020, Pub.L. 80–101, 61 Stat. 136 ...
Read more

Taft-Hartley Act - Spartacus Educational

Taft-Hartley Act. The Taft-Hartley Act (also known as the Labor-Management Relations Act) was passed over the veto of Harry S. Truman on 23rd June, 1947.
Read more

Taft-Hartley Act | United States [1947] | Britannica.com

Taft–Hartley Act, formally Labor–Management Relations Act, (1947), in U.S. history, law—enacted over the veto of Pres. Harry S. Truman—amending ...
Read more

Taft-Hartley Act Definition | Investopedia

BREAKING DOWN 'Taft-Hartley Act' The Taft-Hartley Act revised provisions of the Wagner Act, which was a law passed by Congress and signed by President ...
Read more

Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 - Legal Dictionary

Taft-Hartley Act. Over President Harry S. Truman's Veto, zthe Taft-Hartley Act—which is also called the Labor-Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A ...
Read more

International - ISS

2015 Taft-Hartley International Proxy Voting Guidelines Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy 2 of 44
Read more