class action

Understanding Class Action Lawsuits

A Comprehensive Guide

What is a Class Action?

Frequently Asked Questions About Class Action Lawsuits

(1) What is a class action?
(2) What are the advantages of class actions?
(3) What is the difference between a class action and “mass tort” litigation?
(4) When is a class action not an appropriate way to seek compensation?
(5) How can Audet & Partners, LLP help you pursue a class action claim?

(1) What is a class action?

    • • A class action is a process in which one or more persons or businesses represent a group of similarly situated individuals or businesses.
    • • In federal court, the process is provided for under the federal rules of civil procedure, Rule 23.
    • • Class actions in state courts are governed by similar procedures, with some variations regarding the process of obtaining certification.

(2) What are the advantages of class action?

    • • Aggregation of the class members claims will increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation for the class members. In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action will likely avoid the necessity of repeating “days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial.” (quote from oft cited case, Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos)).
    • • As the United States Supreme Court has noted, a class action may overcome the reality of the fact that “small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual” to file an individual (cited in Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) ).
    • • With the class action process, a corporate wrongdoer who engages in widespread harm, is obligated at the end of the day to in fact those individuals for their injuries.
    • • The class action process not only provides a mechanism for restitution and other payments to the class members, but also deters future wrongdoing by the same defendant (and even others).
    • • Class actions also have the benefit of modifying behavior of not only a defendant, but of the others in an industry. Under the Rule 23, a defendant or set of defendants can be sued in an effort to protect certain rights of others. This tool has been used in a variety of cases and claims, including privacy rights, civil rights and discrimination based claims.
    • • In “limited fund” cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs have the potential to obtain monetary benefits on an equitable basis (as opposed to first to file, first to recover). In Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999), the United States Supreme Court emphasized that class actions provide for an orderly manner of allocation of limited funds. A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.
    • • A class action, in some situations, avoids the situation where different court rulings could create “incompatible standards” of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

(3) What is the difference between a class action and “mass tort” litigation?

    • • The Advisory Committee Notes to federal class action rules note that mass torts are ordinarily “not appropriate” for class treatment. Class treatment may not improve the efficiency of a mass tort because the claims frequently involve individualized issues of law and fact that will have to be re-tried on an individual basis. See Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting nationwide class action against tobacco companies).
    • • Mass torts also involve high individual damage awards; thus, the absence of class treatment will not impede the ability of individual claimants to seek justice.

(4) When is a class action not an appropriate way to seek compensation?

    • • Not every client’s case should proceed as a ‘class action.’
    • • At Audet & Partners, LLP, our attorneys will provide you with an evaluation of the best way to proceed so as to maximize your compensation for injuries suffered.
    • • In some cases, Audet & Partners, llp will represent business in an individual non-class basis in order to maximize the potential recovery for the client.

(5) How can Audet & Partners, LLP help you pursue a class action claim?

    • • Many law firms promote themselves as ‘class action’ law firms. If you are considering whether to retain a law firm, you need to not only look at their cases, but the results achieved and the philosophy driving the firm’s practice.
    • • In reality, only a limited number of law firms in the United States have the resources, expertise and commitment to successfully prosecute class action cases.
    • • The Attorneys at Audet & Partners, LLP have significant experience in reviewing, investigating and prosecuting class action cases, and as a plaintiff’s only law firm, the firm has no potential conflicts by representing ‘both sides’ on the same issue.
    • • We avoid ‘coupon’ oriented settlements, instead focusing on monetary and non-monetary relief that benefit the class as a whole.

For more information about Audet & Partners, LLP, a nationwide plaintiff’s-only class action law firm, view our online firm resume below.   To download a copy of our firm’s resume click here.

Complex and Class Action Litigation

Insurance / Healthcare Litigation / Securities / Insider-Trading / Antitrust

In re Google, Inc., Android Consumer Privacy Litigation – MDL No. 2264, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. William M. Audet was appointed as one of two co-lead counsel in a case involving claims of privacy violation relating to Google’s Android Operating System and its method of collecting data from users. In re iPhone Application Litigation –- MDL No. 2250, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The firm serves as court appointed class liaison counsel for the class of consumers involved with Apple’s use of information from its Apple OS line of iPhones and iPads. In re Zynga Litigation  (Sigala v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-505324) – The served as class counsel for the California class action against a video game company that allegedly distributed private and confidential information to third parties. California IOU Litigation – (Baird v. Chiang, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2010-00081797) – The firm has filed a class action for monetary and other damages arising from the State of California’s illegal issuance of “IOU’s” to small businesses. Russell, et al. v. Wells Frago and Company, et al. – No. C 07 3993 CW, United States District Court, Northern District of California.  Audet & Partners, LLP serves as co-class counsel in a class action case representing thousands of former and current employees of Wells Fargo for overtime.  The case settled after 3 years of litigation with millions of dollars paid to the class. Johns v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC – MDL No. 2558, pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of California.  The firm filed one of a number of class actions investigations that lead to an MDL proceeding involving invasion of privacy by Sony for its users of Sony PlayStation product line.  Case still ongoing. Confidential Plaintiffs v. Finish Line  Case No. CV113874, United States District Court, Northern District of California.  The firm represents individual plaintiffs with claims for invasion of privacy against Finish Line. Whistle Blower Case The firm represented an executive who was fired after reporting financial irregularities.  Confidential settlement reached after trial set. Confidential Misclassification Case  The firm filed claims for misclassification of employees as “managers”.  Confidential settlement reached after one year of litigation.

Product Defect Litigation

Galanti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, No. 03-209, United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Audet & Partners, LLP partners William M. Audet and Michael McShane served as Court-appointed Class Counsel with pending $300 million settlement involving a defective radiant heating system. In re Certainteed Corp. Roofing Shingles Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817, pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as Court appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in a nationwide class action involving claims of a defective roofing product. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Litigation, MDL 08-MDL-1958, United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as class counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in a nationwide class action involving claims of a defective plumbing product installed in thousands of residences throughout the United States. In re Menu/Pet Food Recall Litigation, MDL No. 1850.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet was appointed on of the Co-Lead Class counsel in a case involving recalled pet food.  The ground breaking case resulted in a significant monetary settlement, along with court supervised remedial action to prevent similar recalls of potentially poisoned pet products in the future.   Over 100 class action investigations were filed and consolidated in New Jersey federal court. In re Thomas Train Parts Recall – the firm was appointed lead counsel in a case involving recall of a well known toy product.   The firm’s partner William M. Audet was directly involved in the negotiations and class wide resolution that provided for full refunds for class members, as well as other relief. In re Planet Toys Recall, case no. 08-CV-0592(HB) (SDNY).  The firm was appointed lead counsel in a case involving recall of certain of defendants’ toy products.  Despite the fact that the company declared bankruptcy, lead counsel William m. Audet and his co counsel were able to obtain relief and compensation for class members. In re Kitec Plumbing Litigation, pending in numerous District Courts throughout the United States. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as Court-appointed lead counsel in a nationwide class action prosecuting claims relating to defective plumbing products. In re Uponor Plumbing Litigation, pending in numerous District Courts.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane acts as class counsel in a nationwide class action alleging claims relating to a defective plumbing product. In re Chinese Drywall Litigation, MDL 2047.  Nationwide class action pending in the Easter District of Louisiana involving claims relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane represents putative class of plaintiffs seeking to recover damages as a result of the installation of the drywall in their homes. Ross, et al., v. Trex Company, Inc. Case No. 09-670, United States District Court, Northern District of California. Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane serves as class counsel in a nationwide class action involving claims of defective composite decking sold by the defendant. Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, San Francisco County Superior Court, California, No. 995787, and Chambers, et al., v. Weyerhaeuser, King County Superior Court, Washington, No. 982210842 KNT.  Audet & Partners, LLP’s attorneys served as one of three counsel in a class action involving allegations of defective siding manufactured by Weyerhaeuser. Roy v. Cemwood Corporation, Contra Costa County Superior Court, California, No.: MSC9900499.  Audet & Partners, LLP firm attorneys serve as one of four co-lead counsel in a national class action involving allegations of defective roofing products. In re Stucco Litigation (Ruff v.  Parex) County of New Hanover, North Carolina, No. 96-CVS-0059.  The firm’s principal partner, William M. Audet, serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs Steering Committee.  The case was filed on behalf of homeowners who had defective synthetic stucco installed in their homes. Stuart Hanlon, et al., v. Chrysler Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-95-2010 CAL.  The Firm’s attorneys worked on a case seeking correction of defective rear hatch door lock failures in nominal impacts for 3,300,000 owners of Chrysler minivans.

Mass Tort, Personal Injury  and Complex Litigation

Allen Loretz v. Regal Stone, Ltd. C 07-5800 SC and John Tarantino v. Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., CGC 07 469379 (In re Cosco Busan Oil Spill Litigation).  The firm filed Class and individual claims and represented various individuals, corporations and small business groups, including seafood processors, crab and herring fisheries, marinas, and captains/crews of commercial and recreational vessels.  The firm was responsible for seizure of Cosco Busan, voiding waivers obtained by the Defendants and obtaining other significant orders that benefitted plaintiffs.  Co-counsel in state case brought under the Lampert-Keene Act. In Zyprexa Litigation, MDL 1596, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.  The firm represented over 300 clients who allegedly developed diabetes after ingesting Zyprexa.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet was appointed a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee and continues to assist in completing the MDL. In Baycol Litigation, MDL 1431, United States District Court, Minnesota.  William M. Audet serves as Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee relating to the defective drug Baycol. In re Metabolife Litigation, JCCP 4360 (San Diego County, California).  William M. Audet served as a member of the California State Steering Committee in personal injury investigations arising out of injuries suffered due to Metabolife products. In re Vioxx Litigation, New Jersey State Court and California State Court.  The firm filed in excess of 100 investigations against Defendants Merck & Company arising out of injuries associated with the defective drug Vioxx.  The firm’s investigations were scheduled for trial.  Susanne Scovern of the Firm played a crucial role in the litigation of the Vioxx investigations in New Jersey State Court.  The investigations have been settled for in excess of $4 billion. In re Bextra Litigation, MDL No. 1699, United States District Court, Northern District of California.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet serves as a Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee.  The firm represented in excess of 100 injured clients. In re Intergel Litigation, Florida State Court.  The firm filed dozen of investigations on behalf of women injured using a Johnson & Johnson product called Intergel.  The firm has recovered millions of dollars for their clients in confidential settlements with the company.  Firm attorney Susanne Scovern served as the principal attorney involved in the investigations. In re Defective Ancure Products Liability Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California and Santa Clara County Superior Court.  The firm represents dozens of individuals who were implanted with a defective device.   Joseph Russell serves as the lead attorney in the investigations. Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), et al., v. Philip Morris, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. C 9902621 MHP.  The firm represented Native American Tribes challenging the $200 billion plus state tobacco agreement on the grounds that it violated their civil rights.  The case was argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fen-Phen Product Liability Litigation, MDL 1203, California State Court.  The firm filed a medical monitoring and punitive damage claim on behalf of California residents. In re Baxter Heparin Litigation, Wisconsin and Illinois State Courts (consolidated with MDL 1953).  The firm represents a number of injured victims and their families arising out of contaminated heparin blood transfusion products imported from other countries.  The firm has filed investigations in Illinois and Wisconsin State Court.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner/founder William M. Audet serves as court appointed liaison counsel in the Wisconsin investigations.  The firm continues to evaluate and file investigations for seriously injured clients. In re Pfizer Chantix Litigation, MDL No. 2092.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet serves as a Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee. The firm represents dozens of families who were not properly and fully warned about the safety issues associated with use of Chantix.  The firm has filed, with co-counsel, investigations in state and federal court and continues to meet with potential clients who have claims against the defendants for failure to warn. In re Glaxo Avandia Litigation.  The firm represents dozens of families whose loved ones suffered heart attacks and other injuries relating to use of Avandia.  The firm was one of the first plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to uncover the case and file investigations against the manufacturer of Avandia.  The firm continues to meet with potential clients about their claims.  Along with William Audet, attorney Susanne Scovern heads up the firm team in reviewing potential investigations and assisting in the prosecution of investigations against the defendants. PG&E “San Bruno Fire” Cases.  JCCP No. 4648, (San Mateo County, California) Audet & Partners filed the first class action case seeking damages arising from the San Bruno/ PG&E explosion. In re Tainted Similac Baby Formula (Kury v. Abbott Laboratories, United States District Court, New Jersey) The firm filed a number of class action investigations against Abbott and also represents a number of individuals with personal injury claims arising from tainted baby formula. In re Raptiva Litigation (Hedrick v. Genentech, California State Court (Alameda County) Case No. RG 09-446158)  The firm represents dozens of individuals who have alleged been injured after using Genentech’s now-recalled psoriasis medication.

General Consumer

Consumer Litigation

Apple iPhone 4 Cases  JCCP 4639 (Santa Clara County, California)  William M. Audet was appointed Liaison Counsel in a case involving claims that the “iPhone 4” is allegedly defective. iTunes Litigation (Johnson v. Apple, Inc.  California State Court; Santa Clara County  Case No. 1-09-CV-146501)  The firm serves as lead class counsel in a nationwide class action against Apple, Inc. for allegedly overcharging consumers who purchased “99¢” iTunes gift cards. AAA Battery Overcharge (Davis-Miller v. Automobile Club of Southern California; California State Court, Los Angeles County Case No. BC 398608)  The firm filed a class action on behalf of consumers who purchased automobile batteries allegedly sold to replace batteries that did not require replacement. Google Adwords Litigation (CLRB Hanson Industries , LLC, et al v. Google, Inc., Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 105CV046409).  Serving as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel, the firm represents advertisers on Google’s web pages who claim to have been overcharged for advertising through a complicated monthly charge program. Smith v. HewlettPackard, Santa Clara County Superior Court, CV 776794.  The firm serves as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel.  Contrary to HP’s representations, the Recorders could only consistently and reliably record less user data than the industry standard.  When attempting to record more, error messages appeared, previously recorded data was lost and the CD became useless. In Re Whirlpool Litigation, class action litigated in nine states including California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Tennessee.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane served as Court appointed co-lead counsel in a multi-state class action involving claims of breach of warranty and product defect against both Whirlpool Corporation and Sears & Roebuck, Inc. Palm Treo Litigation,  Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Audet & Partners, LLP partner Michael McShane served as class counsel in a nationwide class action involving claims of product defect against Palm, Inc. Roberts v. Bausch & Lomb, United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, No. CV-94-C-1144-W.  William M. Audet, the firm’s principal partner, served on the Plaintiffs’ Committee in this nationwide consumer class action.  A settlement against Bausch & Lomb was approved by the Court on August 1, 1996.  Under the settlement, Bausch & Lomb agreed to $68 million in cash and products to 1.5 million buyers of the Company’s disposable contact lenses. Hilla v. TCI Cablevision, Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. CV-769105.  The firm represented California residents involving illegal overcharges by the cable company for late fees. Plotkin v. General Electric, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Action No. C-92-4447.  The firm filed a class action against General Electric for defrauding the American public in the sale of Energy Choice Light Bulbs, which were claimed to be energy efficient, required less electricity and would preserve the environment. General Electric subsequently settled this national class action. Afanador v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV-767677.  The Firm’s attorneys, along with other Plaintiffs’ counsel, successfully represent consumers in claims against H&R Block arising out of its ARapid Refund@ program. Sears Automotive Center Consumer Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-92-2227.  The firm filed a class action on behalf of consumers defrauded by Sears’ Auto Centers.  The case was successfully concluded in August 1992.  William M. Audet was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. Chamberlain v. Flashcom, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 00 CC 04212.  In this class action, William M. Audet, principal partner, along with other counsel successfully a remedy against Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business conduct. Providian Credit Card Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, JCCP No. 4085. The Providian Defendants purported to facilitate the issuance of credit cards to people with damaged credit histories.  The case settled for in excess of $10 million.  William M. Audet served as Class Counsel. In re Kia Litigation, Orange County Superior Court.  William M. Audet served as class counsel in a number of jurisdictions in a case involving claims by Kia regarding its automotive products.  The case was settled with a significant monetary and non-monetary recovery for the class.

Insurance / Healthcare Litigation / Securities / Insider-Trading / Antitrust

In re Unum Provident Litigation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, MDL No. 1552.  Audet & Partners, LLP firm partners William M. Audet and Michael McShane serve asCourt-appointed Lead Counsel in a pending class action on behalf of Plaintiffs alleging the wrongful denial of benefits under long term disability policies. In re Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana., MDL Nos. 1371, 1382, 1390, 1391, and 1395.  William M. Audet served on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.  The class investigations involve claims that insurance companies overcharge African-Americans for life and health insurance. In re Life of Georgia Insurance Litigation, Thirteenth Judicial District, Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee. Reached nationwide class settlement in 2002 on behalf of class of insureds discriminated against in the issuance of life insurance.  William M. Audet served as Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel. Thorn v. Jefferson Pilot Insurance Co., United States District Court, South Carolina.  Nationwide class on behalf of purchasers of life insurance.  Michael McShane of the firm represents the proposed Plaintiffs class alleging racial discrimination in the issuance of life insurance policies In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456. Audet & Partners, LLP partner William M. Audet and Michael McShane of the firm serve as Court appointed members of the Executive Committee representing Plaintiffs in a nation-wide class action allegedly the manipulation of pricing for prescription drugs. In re Tenet Healthcare Litigation, Los Angeles County, Superior Court, California. Numerous actions coordinated in 2002 by the Judicial Council.  Partners William M. Audet and Michael McShane served among three Court appointed Lead Counsel on behalf of nationwide class of individuals who were allegedly overcharged directly, or through their health insurance for medical services, products and medication. Lawson, et al., v. Liberty Life, Birmingham, Alabama, No. 96-1119.  William M. Audet of the firm, along with four other Plaintiffs’ Counsel, represents a proposed class of life insurance policy holders of Liberty Life Corporation who were subjected to unlawful life insurance policy “churning” by Liberty Life.

Antitrust In re PRK/Lasik, Laser Surgery Overcharges Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV772894.  Audet & Partners LLP attorneys William M. Audet and Joseph Russell served as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel in a nationwide class action case alleging antitrust violations again Visx, Inc. and Summit, Inc. Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 1200 (and related investigations).  Mr. Audet of the firm serves as one of five Court-appointed Discovery Committee members and as Plaintiffs’ Counsel in a national class action antitrust case pending against the manufacturers of flat glass. Toys “R” Us Antitrust Litigation, United States District, Northern District of California, No. C-97-3931-TEM.  The firm filed a national class action antitrust complaint on behalf of toy consumers. Los Angeles Milk Antitrust Litigation, Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, No. BC 070661.  William M Audet and other members of the firm, along with other Plaintiffs’ Counsel, represents consumers arising out of claims of antitrust violations against Los Angeles supermarkets due to alleged price fixing of milk. California Indirect Purchaser Auction House Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, No. 310313.  In this case against Christie’s, Sotheby’s and others, Defendants are charged with conspiring to fix commissions for the sale at auction of art and other items in California. Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 2969.  The firm members worked on a case for independent pharmacies pursuing claims against major drug manufacturers for violation of California’s price fixing statutes. In re Vitamin Antitrust Litigation, California, North Carolina, Tennessee and Maine.  William M. Audet serves as lead counsel in three states and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in one state (California) in class claims involving alleged price fixing by the manufacturers of vitamin products. In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1311.  William M. Audet serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of price fixing in the Methionine industry. In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 1310.  The firm serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of antitrust violations in the Bromine industry. In re Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation, C.D. Cal., C 9911475 RJK.  Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of carbon fibers were sued by makers of airplanes, spacecraft parts, industrial and sporting equipment for conspiring to maintain an artificially inflated price for their product.  The firm members served as one of Plaintiffs’ counsel. In re: Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, S.D.Fla. MDL 1317.  In this lawsuit Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to create a monopoly and fix prices of this widely used prescription drug as well as preventing the sale of any generic bioequivalent to Hytrin.  The firm members served as one of Plaintiffs’ counsel. In re Dram Antitrust, MDL 1486, Northern District of California.  William M. Audet of the firm serves as class counsel in a class action case to recover money for class members due to antitrust activity in the DRAM industry. In re Copper Tubings Litigation, United States District Court, District of Tennessee.  William M. Audet of the firm was appointed as Co-lead Class Counsel in a case involving an alleged worldwide conspiracy to overcharge customers in the copper tubing industry. Securities / Insider Trading In re CNET Derivative Litigation, William M. Audet and Michael McShane of the firm filed a case against the corporate Defendants for insider trading and back dating of options.  The case was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, California. Adaptec Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV 772590.  The firm serves as Liaison Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of Adaptec, Inc. In re Genesis Securities Litigation, Northern District Court of California.  William M. Audet serves as class counsel on a case filed against Genesis.  After the case was dismissed by the District Court, the firm filed an appeal and ultimately settled the case for $1.5 million. Informix Derivative Securities Litigation, San Mateo Superior Court, California, Case No. 402254.  The firm served as one of the Plaintiffs’ Derivative Counsel in a shareholder lawsuit alleging derivative claims on behalf of Informix. Solv-Ex Securities Litigation, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, New Mexico, No. CV-96-09869.  The firm serves as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in a suit alleging securities fraud against Solv-Ex Corporation and other insider defendants. Imp, Inc., Securities Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV762109.  The firm represents shareholders of Imp, Inc. in an action against certain insiders of Imp, Inc., for alleged insider trading of the Company’s stock. CBT Group Derivative Litigation, San Mateo County Superior Court, California, No.  406767.  The Firm’s founder, William M. Audet served as one of two plaintiffs’ counsel representing shareholders of CBT Group, PLC, in a derivative action against officers and directors of the Company. Oakley Technology Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV75829.  The Firm’s members served as one of three Co-lead Counsel in a derivative securities case brought on behalf of shareholders of Oakley Technology, Inc., brought against certain Officers and Directors of the Company. Horizon Securities Litigation, United States District Court for New Mexico, No. 96-0442 BB/LCS.  William M. Audet of the firm serves as one of the Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in a securities case filed against New Mexico-based Horizon Corporation for alleged violation of federal securities laws. Bay Networks Securities Litigation (Garnier v. Bay Networks, CV764357; Greeneway v. Bay Networks, CV765564), Santa Clara County Superior Court, California.  The firm members served as one of four-plaintiffs’ counsel representing shareholders of Bay Networks for alleged securities violations. Unison Healthcare Corporation Litigation, United States District Court of Arizona, Case No. Civ. 97-0583-PHX.  The firm members served as one of the Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel representing investors in Unison Healthcare. S3 Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, No. CV770254.  The firm members served as one of the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of S-3, Inc. In re Networks Associates Derivative Litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Consolidated Case No. CV781854.  In this case, shareholders sued officers and directors of this leading manufacturer of antivirus and protocol analyzer software who sold over 800,000 shares of their personal stock for more than $33 million by misleading the public regarding its value.  William M. Audet of the firm served as Liaison Counsel. In re Oak Technology Derivative Action, Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. CV758629.  Shareholders sued directors and officers to recover more than $100 million Defendants made by artificially inflating the company’s stock, representing that exceptional demand for the company’s products existed.  In fact, the company’s shipments of CD-ROM controllers far exceeded what the market could absorb.  Three related derivative investigations were filed and subsequently consolidated.  William M. Audet of the firm serves as Lead Counsel in this lawsuit. In re Sybase Derivative Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. C980252CAL.  The Firm’s attorneys served as Plaintiffs’ Counsel in this stockholder’s derivative action brought on behalf of Sybase against certain of the Company’s present and former officers and/or directors for insider trading.

Request a Free Consultation

Request a FREE Consultation Today. Call us: 800.965.1461