Class Action Settlements and Verdicts

Class Action Lawyers Handle Lawsuits Nationwide

At KGG, our class action attorneys have a strong reputation for handling important class action suits nationwide. Partner Gary S. Graifman heads up this department and focuses his successful practice in this area, along with commercial litigation and employment law.

We represent shareholders and securities purchasers in  securities fraud class actions  which seek to recover money damages suffered by  investors due to losses they have sustained as a result of fraud or misrepresentation.   We also represent shareholders in derivative litigation which seeks to make the company whole from breaches of fiduciary duties which have harmed the particular corporation.   The firm also represents consumers in class action litigation based upon false advertising, dangerous product defects, consumer fraud and commercially unconscionable conduct.  The following are pending or settled class action cases prosecuted by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, Graifman, Perlmutter & Carballo, P.C.

In re Rambus Securities Inc. Litigation., 06-c-v4346-JF (U.S. District Ct., N.D. Cal.)

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the class in this securities class action involving allegations of backdating of options.  The matter was settled for $18.33 million and approved on May 14, 2008.

Sheris v. Nissan North America, Inc., 07-cv-2516 (U.S. District Ct., D. New Jersey).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the class in this consumer class action against Infiniti for alleged brake defects in the 2005 G35x model vehicle.  Court certified a New Jersey settlement class which involved reimbursement of the cost of brake and rotor replacement up to $340 per brake replacement.

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 1:08-cv-00214 (U.S. District Ct., S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this litigated consumer class action certified as a New York consumer class by Hon. Colleen McMahon.  The class consisted of  Best Buy purchasers who were denied price match guarantees by Best Buy.  The matter settled shortly before trial.

Lubitz, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., BER-L-4883-04 (New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen Co.)

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the class in this consumer action against DaimlerChrysler Corp.  The Court certified a nationwide settlement class and approved a settlement valued at $14.5 million to owners of Jeep Grand Cherokees, model years 1999 through 2004.

Davis et al. v. Beazer Homes, U.S.A., et al., 1:08-cv-00247 (U.S. District Ct., M.D.N.C.). 

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for this class action settled in connection with claims that defendants’ seller-funded down payment assistance program violated REPSA and North Carolina’s Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act, resulting in a settlement providing for refunds for the down payments made by certain defrauded home  purchasers.

In re Merck Shareholder Derivative Action, ATL-L-3406-07 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Atlantic Co.) (Higbee, J.).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Counsel in this Demand Refused Shareholder Derivative Action regarding the sale, marketing and eventual recall of Vioxx by Merck & Co.  The matter was settled for substantial corporate operational and governance improvements.  The Settlement was approved in April 2010 by Hon. Carol E. Higbee, P.J. Cv.

In re: Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (U.S. District Ct., S.D.N.Y.)

Court approved a settlement involving a fund of approximately $200 million dollars.  This suit was first initiated by KGG and two other firms in Texas.  The case later expanded to cover a multitude of other claims and was settled in a consolidated New York action.

In re NICE Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation,  Master File No. 2:01cv737 (U.S. District Ct., D. New Jersey).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Liaison Counsel for the class in this securities fraud class action litigation which settled for $10 million dollars and was approved by the Court on April 7, 2003.

Martinez  v. District 1199J NEW JERSEY BENEFIT FUND, et al., Docket No. 97-cv-3381 (U.S. District Court, D. New Jersey).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Lead Counsel in this certified class action against the 1199J NJ Union Benefit Fund in which claims alleging violation of ERISA were upheld.  The case was fully litigated to final judgment for the plaintiff class and thereafter, upon execution, the judgment was satisfied with full payment being made to reimburse class members 100% of their losses  (Union Members received full reimbursement for all medical bills paid out-of-pocket during the class period).

In re PHARMAPRINT, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 00-cv-0061 (U.S. District Ct., D. New Jersey).

Firm was Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiff class in this securities fraud class action which settled for $ 2.3 million dollars in connection with claims against defendants.

Birenbaum v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., L-1957-96 (N.J. Superior Court, Essex Co.).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Counsel for the class in this securities fraud class action certified and settled as a nationwide class action in New Jersey State Court involving the purchase of limited partnership interests in real estate.

Maizes & Maizes, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. L-13780-95 (N.J. Superior Court, Essex Co.).

Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in this consumer fraud class action pending in New Jersey State Court alleging misrepresentation in the sale of computer monitors by various computer monitor distributors.  The action was related to In re: Computer Monitor, Proceeding No. 3158, pending in California Superior, San Francisco County.  Joint efforts of negotiation resulted in a settlement which was approved by the California Court.  The settlement was valued in excess of $15 million dollars.

Securities Action against v. IDM Environmental, L-11783-96 (N.J. Superior Court, Middlesex Co. 1966)

Securities fraud class action in New Jersey state court.  Settlement included payment of $1.125 million to nationwide claims of shareholders.

In re Anadigics Securities Litigation, 98-civ-0917 (U.S. District Ct., D.N.J.)

Securities fraud class action litigation alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934.  The action was settled for approximate $11.75 million dollars.

In re: Interactive Network, Inc. Securities Litigation (95-civ-0026 (U.S. District Ct., N.D. Cal.).

Securities fraud class action litigation alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934.  Nationwide class certified in connection with settlement in the sum of $1.9 million dollars.

In re Equinox International Corp.(U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Nev.).

The firm was one of the trial counsel in this consumer class action against Equinox International, Advanced Marketing Seminars, Inc. (a related company), and one of its principals tried in U.S. District Court in Nevada and settled after trial. The suit alleged that Equinox, a multi-level marketing company, was 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 the company.

Securities Action Against Lehman Brothers, 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 alleged 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. The suit claimed that investors lost a substantial portion of their principal.

Krim v. Rhone Poulenc, S.A., 97-civ-04276 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.N.J.).
The firm was co-counsel in a shareholder 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 unfair, below market value price from the minority shareholders whose shares it sought to purchase.

In re Philip Services, Inc., 98-CV-445 (U.S. Dist. Ct, W.D.Pa.).

The firm was co-counsel for the class in this securities fraud class action.  The matter settled for $200 million. In connection with acquisitions, the company allegedly artificially over valued its stock price in connection with stock swaps to purchase from shareholders of All waste and Serv-Tech their interests therein.

Securities Action Against Storm Technology, Inc., CV-009846-7 (Ca. Superior Ct., County of Alameda).

The firm was co-lead counsel in this securities fraud 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.

Oppenheim v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 97-109088 (Sup. Ct., County of NY).

The firm was co-lead counsel in this class action brought on behalf of physicians in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania against Oxford Health Plans alleging Oxford improperly withheld monies from physicians without payment of interest, although such payment was due. The action sought to obtain accrued interest on payments due to such physicians as a class and to obtain an accounting for the withheld payments deducted by Oxford when payments were made to such physicians.  The action was settled in conjunction with a simultaneous settlement with the New York Attorney General requiring interest to be paid and instituted a definition of “clean claims” requiring future payments in a timely manner.

Shapiro v. Urohealth Systems, Inc., 97-civ-0552 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D.Ca.).

The firm was co-counsel for the class in this securities fraud class action.  This class action alleged securities fraud against directors and certain officers of Urohealth Systems, Inc. with respect to the inflation of sales and revenue figures of certain products. That inflation served to greatly artificially inflate the stock price shareholders paid during the class period. For example, it is alleged that the company incurred substantial losses since distributors and/or users returned product shipped, where the ability of customers to return product was not disclosed by the company.

Need Information About a Class Action Lawsuit?

At KGG, we have helped investors and consumers alike deal with the complicated nature of class action lawsuits for nearly four decades. Call us today for more information; our toll-free number is (866) 971-0927. We would be happy to schedule a consultation to review your specific situation and let you know what your next step should be. Need an evening appointment? We can accommodate you.