Consumer Cases

• In re Certainteed Corp. Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, No, 07-MDL-1817-LP (E.D. Pa.). Consumer Class Action alleging that CertainTeed sold defective shingles. The parties reached a settlement which was approved and valued by the Court at between $687 to $815 million.
• Physicians of Winter Haven LLC, d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS Corporation, No. 1:10-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio). Class action on behalf of hospitals and surgery centers that purchased a sterilization device that allegedly did not receive the required pre-sale authorization from the FDA. The case settled for approximately $20 million worth of benefits to class members.
• Allison, et al. v. The GEO Group, No. 2:08-cv-467-JD (E.D.Pa.). Civil rights class action lawsuit alleging that pre-trial detainees admitted to prisons operated by The GEO Group were unconstitutionally strip searched. After the Court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the parties reached a $2.9 million settlement.
• Kurian v. County of Lancaster, No. 2:07-cv-03482-PD (E.D.Pa.). Civil rights class action alleging that pre-trial detainees admitted to the Lancaster County Prison were unconstitutionally strip searched. The case settled for $2.5 million.
• Wong v. T-Mobile, No. 05-cv-73922-NGE-VMM (E.D.Mich.). This case involved allegations that T-Mobile overcharged its subscribers by billing them for services for which they had already paid a flat rate monthly fee to receive unlimited access. After defeating a motion to compel arbitration, the parties reached a settlement worth approximately $6.7 million, which provided class members with a 100% net recovery.
• Shared Medical Systems 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan Litig., No. 0885 (Pa. C.P.). This case was brought on behalf of employees of Defendant Siemens who had their incentive compensation plan compensation reduced by 30%, even though they had earned their incentive compensation based on the targets, goals and quotas in the incentive plans. On the eve of trial, Siemens agreed to pay class members a net recovery of the full amount by which their incentive compensation was reduced (approximately $10.1 million), and pay all counsel fees and expenses in addition to the class members’ recovery.
• Smith v. Gaiam, Inc., No. 09-cv-02545-WYD-BNB (D. Colo.). Consumer protection class action lawsuit alleging that the defendant made misrepresentations about water bottles that it sold. The Firm obtained a settlement that provided full recovery to approximately 930,000 class members.
• In re Pennsylvania Baycol: Third-Party Payor Litig., No. 001874 (Pa. C.P.). This case was bought by various Health and Welfare Funds in connection with the withdrawal by Bayer of its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. After the court certified a nationwide class of third-party payors and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability, the parties reached a settlement in which Bayer agreed to pay class members a net recovery that approximates the maximum damages (including pre-judgment interest) suffered by class members. That settlement represented three times the net recovery of Bayer’s voluntary claims process (which was accepted by various large insurers like AETNA and CIGNA).
• Nelson v. Nationwide, March Term 1997, No. 045335 (Phila. C.C.P.). Action on behalf of Pennsylvania physicians and chiropractors who were not paid by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for physical therapy/physical medicine services provided to its insured’s. Nationwide agree to pay class members approximately 130% of their bills.
• Wolens, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Consumer Class Action alleging that American Airlines breached its contracts with members of its AAdvantage frequent flyer program when it retroactively increased the number of frequent flyer miles needed to claim travel awards. In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court held that plaintiffs’ claims were not preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. 513 U.S. 219 (1995). The settlement required American to provide class members with mileage certificates that represented the full extent of their alleged damages, which the Court valued, after retaining its own valuation expert, at between $95.6 million and $141.6 million.

Securities Cases

• In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnerships Litigation, No. CV 98-7035 DDP (CD. Cal.). The Firm was Lead Trial Counsel in this class action asserting federal securities law claims and claims for state law breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of investors. The jury returned a $185 million verdict (including $92.5 million in punitive damages) in favor of the investors. The $185 million verdict was among the “Top 10″ Verdicts of 2002, and was the first, and remains one of the largest, jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in a case brought under the federal securities laws since their amendment in 1995. The case was settled for $83 million, which represented full recovery for the investors.
• In re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:03-CV-05674-LDD (E.D. Pa.) Securities Class Action alleging accounting fraud. To date, the Firm has recovered over $21 million, representing approximately one third of class members’ provable damages, with trial pending with the primary defendant Deloitte & Touche.
• City of St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., et al., Case 07 C 6174 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill). Federal securities class action on behalf of Inland Western shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Inland Western and certain of its current and former directors, officers and affiliates, and its financial advisor, by virtue of their devising and soliciting the shareholders’ approval of a merger of defendants’ affiliate with Inland Western for $375 million worth of the Company’s stock. The Firm negotiated a settlement requiring defendants to return $90 million worth of the stock they received in the merger, which represented a recovery of over 40% of estimated damages.
• CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc. Federal Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-1231 (M.D. Fla.). Securities Class Action on behalf of the shareholders of CNL Hotels, a $3.0 billion real estate investment trust. The Firm settled the litigation for $35 million cash plus a revised merger agreement between CNL and its affiliate which saved CNL and its stockholders $225 Million. Judge Presnell approved the settlement, noting: “Plaintiffs’ counsel pursued this complex case diligently, competently and professionally” and recovered “a substantial benefit…estimated at approximately $225,000,000.”
• In Re Coin Fund Litigation, (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles). Limited Partnership Class Action in which defendant Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $35 million on behalf of limited partners, which represented a 100% net recovery of their initial investments (which were worthless due to fraud committed by Merrill Lynch’s co-general partner for the Limited Partnerships).

Mergers & Acquisitions

• In re Atlas Energy Resources LLC, Unitholder Litigation, Consol C.A. No. 4589-VCN.  The Firm was co-lead counsel in an action challenging the fairness of the acquisition of Atlas Energy Resources LLC by its controlling shareholder, Atlas America, Inc.  After over two-years of complex litigation, the Firm negotiated a $20 million cash settlement.
• In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol C.A. No. 06-C-801 (Kan.), Action challenging the fairness of a management-led buyout. After hard-fought litigation, the Firm negotiated a $200 million cash settlement — the largest ever generated by litigation relating to a buyout.
• In re Genentech, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 3911-VCS (Del. Ch.). The Firm was co-lead counsel challenging the attempt by Genentech’s controlling stockholder to take Genentech private. During the course of litigation, the offer was raised by approximately $4 billion.
• Shared Medical Systems 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan Litig., No. 0885 (Pa. C.P.). This case was brought on behalf of employees of Defendant Siemens who had their incentive compensation plan compensation reduced by 30%, even though they had earned their incentive compensation based on the targets, goals and quotas in the incentive plans. On the eve of trial, Siemens agreed to pay class members a net recovery of the full amount by which their incentive compensation was reduced (approximately $10.1 million), and pay all counsel fees and expenses in addition to the class members’ recovery.
• In re Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 4526-VCS (Del. Ch.), The Firm’s efforts prompted PepsiCo to raise its buyout offer for Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. by approximately $1 billion and take other steps to improve the buyout on behalf of public stockholders.
• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Josey, et. al., C.A. No. 5427-VCP. This action challenging the acquisition of Mariner Energy, Inc. by Apache Corporation led to the unprecedented complete elimination of the termination fee from the merger agreement and supplemental disclosures regarding the merger.
• In re Chiron Corporation Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 1602-N (Del. Ch.). The Delaware Chiron case was coordinated with In re Chiron Shareholder Deal Litigation, Consol. Case No. RG05-230567 (Cal.) and challenged an attempt by Chiron’s controlling stockholder to buy out the shares of the public stockholders. Following briefing on a preliminary injunction led by the Firm, the controlling stockholder raised its offer by $330 million.
• In re Freeport McMoRan Sulphur Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 16729-NC (Del. Ch.). Action challenging the fairness of the terms and process of a 1998 merger between Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas, Co. On the eve-of-trial, the Firm negotiated a $17.5 million settlement.
• In re J. Crew Group, Inc. S’holders Litigation, C.A. No. 6043-CS, The Firm was co-lead counsel challenging the fairness of a going private acquisition of J.Crew by TPG and members of J.Crew’s management.  After hard-fought litigation, the action resulted in a settlement fund of $16 million and structural changes to the go-shop process, including an extension of the go-shop process, elimination of the buyer’s informational and matching rights and requirement that the transaction to be approved by a majority of the unaffiliated shareholders.

Corporate Mismanagement and Shareholder Derivative Litigation

• In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation (MDL 04-1586) –Derivative actions involving alleged market timing in eighteen mutual fund families. This Multi-District Litigation resulted in numerous settlements totaling over $250 million.
• Gelfman et.al. v. Weeden Investors, L.P., et.al., C.A. No. 18519 (Del. Ch.). Action alleging that the corporate general partner (and its board of directors) of a limited partnership violated contractual and fiduciary duties owed to limited partners. Following a trial on the merits, Plaintiffs prevailed on a substantial portion of their claims resulting in a victory for plaintiffs.
• Saito, et.al. v. McCall, et.al., C.A. No. 17132-NC (Del. Ch.). Derivative action on behalf of McKesson HBOC arising from alleged oversight violations by certain board members. The case settled for $30 milllion plus other corporate governance benefits. The settlement was characterized by the Court as “strikingly good” particularly in light of the “onerous path” presented by Delaware law for derivative Plaintiffs.
• Sample v. Morgan, et. al., C.A. No. 1214-VCS (Del. Ch.), Action alleging that members of the board of directors of Randall Bearings, Inc. breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its stockholders and committed corporate waste. The action resulted in an eve-of-trial settlement including revocation of stock issued to insiders, a substantial cash payment to the corporation and reformation of the Company’s corporate governance.
• Manson v. Northern Plain Natural Gas Co., LLC, et. al., C.A. No. 1973-N (Del. Ch.). Class and derivative action asserting contract and fiduciary duty claims stemming from dropdown asset transactions to a partnership from an affiliate of its general partner. The case settled for a substantial adjustment (valued by Plaintiff’s expert to be worth more than $100 million) to the economic terms of units issued by the partnership in exchange for the assets.

Full Recovery Cases

While it can be challenging for class members to receive a full recovery of their damages, C&T has played a prominent role in a number of cases that have resulted in class members recovering the full amount (or more) of their damages.

• In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnerships Litigation, No. CV 98-7035 DDP (CD. Cal.). The Firm was Lead Trial Counsel in this class action asserting federal securities law claims and claims for state law breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of investors. The jury returned a $185 million verdict (including $92.5 million in punitive damages) in favor of the investors. The $185 million verdict was among the “Top 10″ Verdicts of 2002, and was the first, and remains one of the largest, jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in a case brought under the federal securities laws since their amendment in 1995. The case was settled for $83 million, which represented full recovery for the investors.
• Wong v. T-Mobile, No. 05-cv-73922-NGE-VMM (E.D.Mich.). This case involved allegations that T-Mobile overcharged its subscribers by billing them for services for which they had already paid a flat rate monthly fee to receive unlimited access. After defeating a motion to compel arbitration, the parties reached a settlement worth approximately $6.7 million, which provided class members with a 100% net recovery.
• Shared Medical Systems 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan Litig., No. 0885 (Pa. C.P.). This case was brought on behalf of employees of Defendant Siemens who had their incentive compensation plan compensation reduced by 30%, even though they had earned their incentive compensation based on the targets, goals and quotas in the incentive plans. On the eve of trial, Siemens agreed to pay class members a net recovery of the full amount by which their incentive compensation was reduced (approximately $10.1 million), and pay all counsel fees and expenses in addition to the class members’ recovery.
• In re Pennsylvania Baycol: Third-Party Payor Litig., No. 001874 (Pa. C.P.). This case was bought by various Health and Welfare Funds in connection with the withdrawal by Bayer of its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. After the court certified a nationwide class of third-party payors and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability, the parties reached a settlement in which Bayer agreed to pay class members a net recovery that approximates the maximum damages (including pre-judgment interest) suffered by class members. That settlement represented three times the net recovery of Bayer’s voluntary claims process (which was accepted by various large insurers like AETNA and CIGNA).
• Nelson v. Nationwide, March Term 1997, No. 045335 (Phila. C.C.P.). Action on behalf of Pennsylvania physicians and chiropractors who were not paid by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for physical therapy/physical medicine services provided to its insured’s. Nationwide agree to pay class members approximately 130% of their bills.
• Wolens, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Consumer Class Action alleging that American Airlines breached its contracts with members of its AAdvantage frequent flyer program when it retroactively increased the number of frequent flyer miles needed to claim travel awards. In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court held that plaintiffs’ claims were not preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. 513 U.S. 219 (1995). The settlement required American to provide class members with mileage certificates that represented the full extent of their alleged damages, which the Court valued, after retaining its own valuation expert, at between $95.6 million and $141.6 million.
• In Re Coin Fund Litigation, (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles). Limited Partnership Class Action in which defendant Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $35 million on behalf of limited partners, which represented a 100% net recovery of their initial investments (which were worthless due to fraud committed by Merrill Lynch’s co-general partner for the Limited Partnerships).