Pending or Settled Class Action Cases Being Prosecuted by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C.
In re: Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.)
200 million dollars. Suit initiated by KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. and two other firms in Texas. The case expanded to cover a multitude of other claims and was settled in a consolidated New York action.
Birenbaum v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., L-1957-96 (N.J. Superior Court, Essex Co.).
Securities fraud class action recently certified as a nationwide class action in New Jersey State Court. Complaint alleges fraudulent misrepresentations which induced investors to purchase limited partnership interests in John Hancock real estate partnerships. The action is currently pending.
Maizes & Maizes, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. L-13780-95 (N.J. Superior Court, Essex Co.).
15 million dollars.
Goldberg v. IDM Environmental, L-11783-96 (N.J. Superior Court, Middlesex Co. 1966).
Securities fraud class action in New Jersey State Court which alleged that shareholders paid inflated prices for stock purchased during class period as a result of fraudulent misstatements. Settlement includes payment of 1.125 million dollars to nationwide class of shareholders.
Max Grill v. American Home Products Corp., MRS-L-164-98 (Superior Ct. of New Jersey, Morris Co.). A derivative action on behalf of the company against its directors and officers for alleged waste, mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. It is alleged that these officers and directors failed to reveal that the company's popular weight-loss drugs, sold under the names Redux and Pondimin, had serious detrimental effects on the health of users. When this was eventually disclosed the company became subjected to various shareholder class actions, suits by individuals and a class of individuals alleged to have been injured by the product. In this action, plaintiff sues on behalf of the company to recover losses from directors and officers.
Eric Lofgren v. Interactive Network Inc. C-95-0026DLJ (U.S. Dist. Ct., Northern Dist. of California).
A class action law suit which seeks to recover the losses incurred by investors as a result of securities fraud alleged to have been engaged in by INN's officers and directors. It is alleged that these misrepresentations inflated the price of the shares of INN during the class period.
Blanca Mancini v. Equinox International Corp. A3803-48 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Clark County, Nevada).
This action is a consumer class action against Equinox International, Advanced Marketing Seminars, Inc. (a related company), and one of its principals. The suit alleges that Equinox, a multi-level marketing company, is engaged in an illegal pyramid scheme and made uniform misrepresentations to prospective representatives concerning the income that they could expect to make if they joined or affiliated with the company.
Bette Grayson v. Anadigics Inc. 98-CV-1688 (D.N.J.).
A shareholder class action alleging securities fraud violations by the company and certain officers and directors who made material misstatements and withheld material information resulting in a decrease in the stock price when the information was finally revealed.
Lenore Klein v. Lehman Bothers, Inc. et al., L-5162-96 (Sup. Ct. of New Jersey, Union Co.).
A class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased limited partnership investments in the Balcor Series of real estate partnerships sponsored and sold by Shearson Lehman/American Express. The action alleges that material misrepresentations were made to investors inducing them to invest in those partnerships and that investors did not receive the returns or appreciation promised and lost a substantial portion of their principal.
Jerry Krim v. Rhone Poulenc, S.A. 3:97-CV04276 (U.S. Dist. Ct. of New Jersey) and Case No. 97-142-62 (Ct. of Comm. Pleas, Mong. Co., Pa.).
A class action alleging that Rhone-Poulenc, S.A., the parent company of Rhone Poulenc Rorer, Inc., sought to buy out shares in the subsidiary at an unfairly low price from the minority shareholders whose shares it sought to purchase.
Lucy Martinez v. District 1199J National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees 2-97CV03381 (U.S. Dist. Ct. of New Jersey).
This is a class action brought on behalf of former employees of United Healthcare Systems. After the hospital closed, these employees learned that their medical benefits had been terminated previously without their notice and that certain pension monies to which they were entitled had been used by the hospital's management with the Union's acquiescence, consent and knowledge instead of being deposited in the various pension plans. The suit alleges violations of federal ERISA statutes.
Ronald McElroy v. Philip Services, Inc. 98CV445 (U.S. Dist. Ct, W.D.Pa.).
200 million dollars. In connection with the acquisitions, the company allegedly greatly artificially inflated its stock price in the stock swaps with shareholders of Allwaste and Serv-Tech.
Roberta Goldberg v. Storm Technology, Inc. V-009846-7 (Ca. Superior Ct., County of Alameda).
A class action alleging that Storm Technology overstated its sales and revenue figures, particularly with respect to sales of its scanners. When the true state of affairs with respect to sales and revenue were revealed, the stock price dropped drastically.
Jeffrey S. Oppenheim v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc. 97-109088 (Sup. Ct., County of NY).
A class action brought on behalf of physicians against Oxford Health Plans alleging Oxford improperly withheld monies from physicians without payment of interest, although such payment was due. The action seeks to obtain interest for such physicians as a class and to obtain an accounting for the withheld payments deducted by Oxford when payments were made to such physicians.
Zvi Shapiro v. Urohealth Systems, Inc. SACV-97-552 (GLT) (U.S.Dist. Ct., C.D.Ca.).
A class action alleging securities fraud against directors and certain officers of the company with respect to the inflation of sales and revenue figures of certain products which thereby greatly artificially inflated the stock price which shareholders paid for Urohealth stock during the class period. For example, it is alleged that substantial losses were incurred by the company since distributors and/or users returned product shipped, where the ability of customers to return product was not disclosed by the company.
C.M. Schneck v. Toys R Us, Inc. MDL1211(U.D. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y.).
A class action alleging antitrust violations against Toys R Us and a number of toy manufacturers for conspiring to inflate the prices which consumers paid for various toys distributed by the defendant manufacturers at stores other than Toys R Us.
