Examples of our past and present cases and areas in which our attorneys practice:
Securities and Corporate Governance
Cohen v. McCall, et al.
Derivative action on behalf of McKesson and McKesson HBOC alleging breaches of fiduciary duties arising from the merger between McKesson Corporation and HBO & Co., Inc.
In Re: Critical Path Derivative Litigation
Derivative action on behalf of holders of Critical Path Securities following company admission of improper revenue recognition practices and resignation of corporate executives.
In Re: Digex, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Minority shareholders of Digex, Inc. sued to enjoin MCI WorldCom’s planned acquisition of a controlling interest in Digex through a merger with Intermedia Communications, Inc., the majority shareholder. In a settlement approved by Delaware Chancery Court on April 6, 2000, a fund consisting of $165 million in MCI Worldcom stock and $15 million in cash was secured for Digex shareholders, as well as non-cash benefits valued at $450 million.
Isco v. Kraemer (In Re: UDC Homes, Inc.)
Securities class action in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, against officers and directors of real estate development company and its auditors. The plaintiffs obtained more than $18 million in settlements.
JDS Uniphase writes off $44 billion in goodwill. Green & Noblin, P.C., represents plaintiffs in shareholder derivative litigation against the directors and officers of San Jose, California based fiber-optic technology company JDS Uniphase (NASDAQ: JDSU), along with its auditor Ernst & Young, LLP. On July 26, 2001, the company announced that it would be restating its third quarter 2001 results and writing off some $44 billion dollars in goodwill. Learn more
National Golf Properties, Inc. (NYSE:TEE)
Green & Noblin, P.C., is investigating the merger of National Golf Properties, Inc. (“National Golf”) with an investor group composed of GS Capital Partners 2000, Goldman Sachs Whitehall Street Real Estate Fund 2001 and Starwood Capital Group. Learn more
Noel Saito v. McKesson, HBOC, Inc.
Delaware Supreme Court Vindicates Stockholders’ Right to Inspect Corporate Documents. In a case of first impression pursued by Robert S. Green and Robert A. Jigarjian, the Delaware Supreme Court held that Delaware Code section 220 cannot be read narrowly to deprive a stockholder of necessary documents solely because the documents were prepared by third parties or predate the stockholder’s first investment in the corporation.
In Re: Prison Realty Securities Litigation
A securities class action brought on behalf of investors against a real estate investment trust and its officers and directors, following defendants’ alleged false statements made in the context of a merger between Corrections Corporation of America and CCA Prison Realty Trust and subsequent operation of the merged entity. On February 13, 2001, the Court granted final approval to a settlement for over $104 million in cash and stock. See In re Prison Realty Securities Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12575 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).
In Re: XO Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation
A national class action was brought on behalf of all persons who own shares of XO Class A common stock. Subsequently, XO Communications filed for bankruptcy protection. In November 2002, The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement agreement whereby XO Communications is to receive $25 million, of which approximately $8.3 million will be paid in settlement of the shareholder litigation.
Whirlpool Calypso™ Washing Machines
Final approval of settlement granted for claims arising from defects in the Calypso model washing machines made by Whirlpool and also sold under the Kenmore Elite brand at Sears. Settlement Information
Rusnak Automotive Group
On July 12, 2005 the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles approved the settlement agreement reached with the Rusnak Automotive Group.
The settlement applies to all persons who purchased or leased from Rusnak Automotive Group between August 26, 1999 and August 20, 2004, BMW vehicles which were equipped with after-market wheels which mimic the type and appearance of original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) BMW wheels. Learn more
Brauer v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture and DirecTV, Inc.
In this national class action, the Plaintiff sought damages for a class of 900,000 subscribers to satellite TV, whose network programming (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) was cut off after DirecTV and PrimeTime were found to have violated the United States Copyright Act by retransmitting the programming to those subscribers. Under a settlement valued at $44 million, the defendants provided a package of free, premium movie programming to the class. Settlement approved April 2001.
In Re: Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT Tires Products Liability Litigation
Products liability action brought on behalf of owners of certain Firestone tires and Ford Explorers asserting claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.; state consumer protection statutes and common law. The claims arise from the allegedly deadly combination of two defective products: tires that shed their tread and Explorers with an unreasonable propensity to rollover. Learn more
Wilson v. Mercury Casualty Company
Class action on behalf of California residents alleged to have been unlawfully deprived of the good driver discount on their California automobile insurance policies. The case is pending in the Court of Appeals.
Vegas Grand Condos
Condominium purchasers signed Reservation Agreements and made deposits of $10,000 to $25,000 to purchase specific condominium units for a specific price at the Vegas Grand, an 880-unit luxury condominium project now under construction in Las Vegas. Then, after Las Vegas real estate prices skyrocketed, the developer notified buyers that unless they agreed to a significant price increase their deposit would be returned and the condominium reserved for them would be sold to someone else at the higher price. Green & Noblin, P.C., is currently investigating potential legal claims arising from the actions of Del American, the developer, and other related parties. Learn more
This widely-used cholesterol lowering drug manufactured by Bayer is alleged to cause dangerous side effects, including fatal rhabdomyolysis, a condition typified by muscle cell breakdown. Bayer has now withdrawn Baycol from the U.S. market. Learn more
Falk v. Ong
Consumer and products liability actions arising out of mass distribution of counterfeit infant formula through supermarket and other retail chains. Favorable settlements were obtained on behalf of thirty families within nine months after filing action.
On July 24, 2003, the Honorable Donald Floyd of the District Court of Texas, Jefferson County, preliminarily approved a settlement with Bridgestone/ Firestone to resolve numerous class action lawsuits filed after the company recalled about 14.4 million tires in August 2000. Learn more
In Re: Nestle Juice Products Litigation
Class action under California consumer protection laws for sale of adulterated apple juice. After submission of competing applications, Robert Green was designated lead counsel by the San Francisco Superior Court. Settlement with guaranteed value of $3.5 million approved November 1997.
Consumer Financial Services
Bank United Mortgage Services
Bank United allegedly assessed unlawful late fees, property inspection fees, and other charges. Learn more
Bond v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A.
Class action for alleged violations of Truth-In-Lending Act, Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of contract and other claims arising out of alleged improper assessment of late fees by credit card lender.
Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., et al.
Class action for breach of contract and violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising out of alleged “bait and switch” balance transfer offer by credit card lender. Plaintiffs contend lender promised “fixed APR” and “no annual fee,” to induce balance transfers, then raised interest rates and assessed annual fees.
DeMando v. Capital One Bank
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, and found that Capital One’s notice of change in terms stating a higher APR than that promised constituted a violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Overcharges were voluntarily refunded to all affected borrowers. Learn more
Kalhammer v. First USA Bank
Consumer class action for breach of the Truth-In-Lending Act and breach of contract. Settlement providing for distribution of a minimum of $6 million in cash and credits to current and former credit card account holders approved November 1997.
Mager v. First National Bank of Marin
Class action for violations of Nevada Consumer Fraud Statute and other claims against “sub-prime” lender, arising out of alleged deceptive practices and originating new accounts and imposing improper fees and charges on credit card accounts. Settlement for $4 million approved in May 2002. Learn more
Mitchell v. American Fair Credit Association, et al.
Class action brought on behalf of California residents who became members of the American Fair Credit Association (AFCA) credit repair scheme. Settlement fund of $8.6 million, complete debt relief, and credit repair approved in February, 2003. Learn more
Prata v. Bank One, N.A.
A statewide representative action brought against Bank One concerning its private label credit card “same as cash” finance plan. Plaintiff alleged the “same as cash” finance plan and the accompanying advertisements were likely to mislead consumers into believing no minimum monthly payments were required during the “same as cash” promotional period. On September 12, 2002 the Court preliminarily approved a $3 million cash fund settlement to be distributed among approximately 100,000 California consumers.
Prata v. GE Capital Consumer Card Co.
This case was a statewide representative action brought on behalf of the general public and against GE Capital concerning its private label credit card business. GE promoted finance plans using the name “same as cash.” Consumers like Plaintiff who understood the phrase “same as cash” to mean that no payments were required and no interest would be charged during the period were penalized with extra fees and interest. GE denied Plaintiff’s allegations, but agreed to settle the matter on a class basis. On December 9, 2003, the Los Angeles Superior Court approved a settlement providing for injunctive relief and a $ 2.5 million cash fund, which was distributed among 26,305 California consumers. Learn more
In Re: Providian Credit Card Cases
A national class action brought on behalf of Providian credit card customers who were improperly charged late fees, higher interest rates on balance transfers, and fees for add-on products, including Credit Protection, PricePro, Drive Pro, HealthPro, and credit line increases. In one of the largest consumer settlements in history, the court approved a settlement for $105 million, which will cover restitution to Providian customers, “in-kind” payments to customers, and the costs and expenses of the litigation.
Sandoval v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al.
Class action alleging deceptive business practices arising out of mortgage loan servicing transactions and improper property inspection fees on HUD guaranteed loans.
Stoddard v. Advanta Corporation
Class action on behalf of cardholders who were promised a fixed APR for life in connection with balance transfers, whose APR was then raised pursuant to a notice of change in terms. The Delaware Superior Court approved a $7.25 million settlement in December 1998.
Barrick Gold Corporation
Class action on behalf of all purchasers and/or sellers of gold futures and option contracts on the COMEX. The complaint alleges that Barrick Gold Corporation and JP Morgan combined to manipulate the price of gold, attempted to monopolize the spot gold market, and have restrained trade in that market, primarily through the use of gold derivatives, physical sales of gold on the spot gold market, and public misrepresentations. Learn more
Holiday Matinee v. Rambus, Inc.
Class action on behalf of purchasers of products that incorporate technology Rambus Inc. licensed to manufacturers of computer memory. Learn more
In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Litigation
Class action on behalf of end-user consumers and resellers of computer memory to recover damages from DRAM manufacturers’ alleged agreement to fix prices. Learn more
Arenas v. General Motor Corporation et al.
Class action on behalf of purchasers of new cars to recover supracompetitive prices maintained by auto-manufacturers’ alleged attempts to prevent less expensive Canadian cars from entering the U.S. Market. Learn more
Linney v. Cellular Alaska
This case involved claims arising out of the operation of cellular telephone partnerships. A settlement providing for a $6 million settlement fund was granted final approval July 1997. See Linney v. Cellular Alaska, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998).
Lipton v. MCI Worldcom, Inc.
Class action under Federal Communications Act arising out of alleged failure to deliver “5 Cent Sundays” billing plan. Lipton v. MCI WorldCom, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2491 (D.D.C. 2001).
Lund v. AT&T Corporation, et al.
Class action brought on behalf of small businesses whose long-distance service was switched to Business Discount Plan, Inc. A settlement providing for full cash refund or free long-distance telephone service was approved in December 1999.
MCI Non-Subscriber Rates Litigation
A class action brought on behalf of MCI WorldCom customers who were charged MCI’s high “non-subscriber” or “casual caller” rates for direct-dialed long distance calls (approximately $3 for the first minute and $0.40 per minute thereafter). On March 29, 2001, the Court approved a settlement for over $90 million in cash, providing either a fixed award of $75 or a reasonable approximation of actual damages, at the class member’s election.
In Re: NOS Communications
Class action under Federal Communications Act against switchless reseller for use of deceptive “call unit” billing practice – referred to as Total Call Units, or TCU’s . See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in In Re: NOS Communications Inc. and Affinity Network Inc., File No. EB-00-TC-005 (Federal Communications Commission adopted Mar. 28, 2001, released Apr. 2, 2001).
Utility Consumers’ Action Network v. MCI Worldcom, Inc.
Class action under Communications Act for alleged repeated imposition of monthly charges and other fees for service following subscriber’s request to discontinue long distance or local telephone service.