SUCCESSFUL LITIGATIONS

Examples of some of the legal actions in which the firm has served as counsel are as follows:

WAGE AND HOUR CLASS ACTIONS

Kirschenbaum v. Electronic Arts, Inc. 

Co-Lead Counsel in class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation for current and former computer graphics artists employed in California by Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”), the world’s largest manufacturer of computer video games.  The case has now been settled after the parties conducted formal and informal discovery, and reviewed thousands of pages of company records.  The settlement totaled $15.6 million, for approximately 618 class members.  We believe this is the first class action involving recovery of overtime compensation for computer graphics artists in the electronic game industry.

Hasty v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Co-Lead Counsel in class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation for current and former computer programmers employed in California by Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”), the world’s largest manufacturer of computer video games.  The case was settled after the parties conducted formal and informal discovery, including numerous depositions and review of thousands of pages of company records.  The settlement totaled $14.9 million, for approximately 600 class members.  We believe this is the first class action involving recovery of overtime compensation for computer programmers in California.

Tam Su v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Lead counsel in representative action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation allegedly owed to computer graphics artists employed in Florida by Electronic Arts, Inc.  The case was settled following the settlement of the Kirschenbaum case for a total of $785,000, for approximately 119 class members.

Dooley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., and McLaughlin, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Counsel in class actions seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation for current and former Auto Damage Appraisers employed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.  Both cases asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of appraisers working for Liberty Mutual nationwide.  In addition, the McLaughlin case asserted a Rule 23 class claim under state law on behalf of appraisers working for Liberty Mutual in Massachusetts.  The settlement totaled $6.4 million, for approximately 149 class members.
 

ERISA LITIGATION

In re Stone & Webster ERISA Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represented plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and of the Employee Investment Plan of Stone & Webster, Incorporated and Participating Subsidiaries, and of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of Stone & Webster, Incorporated and Participating Subsidiaries, and on behalf of the participants of the Plans pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to recover damages suffered by Stone & Webster employee retirement plans for breach of fiduciary duty by certain former officers and directors of Stone & Webster who were fiduciaries of the plans.  Settled for $8 million, approved by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
 

SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS

Merrill Lynch

Shapiro Haber & Urmy partner Edward Haber is the court appointed co-chairman of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in In re Merrill Lynch Analyst Reports Sec. Litig., 02-MDL-1484 (S.D.N.Y.). Shapiro Haber & Urmy is also court-appointed lead counsel in two of the Merrill Lynch securities analyst cases: InfoSpace Analyst Reports Sec. Litig., and Internet Capital Group Analyst Reports Sec. Litig. The class action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch and former internet stock analyst Henry Blodget alleged that defendants issued false and misleading analyst reports regarding internet companies covered by Merrill Lynch. The class action recently was settled for $125 million.

Credit Suisse First Boston: Razorfish

The firm was lead counsel in a class action suit brought against Credit Suisse First Boston that was settled for $3 million.  The complaint alleged that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of favorable research reports on Razorfish that were materially false or misleading in that they did not disclose conflicts of interest of Credit Suisse, and in particular the practice of Credit Suisse to gain lucrative investment banking business in part by providing coverage and issuing favorable research reports on prospective investment banking customers. According to news reports, an investigation conducted by the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts uncovered "very troubling" internal Credit Suisse materials that "suggest . . . a pattern of breach of fiduciary duty" and which appear to have "treated investors like suckers". According to another news report, the Secretary of State has suggested that criminal charges be filed against Credit Suisse over its fraudulent stock research coverage.


Credit Suisse First Boston: Winstar

The firm was co-lead counsel in a class action suit brought against Credit Suisse First Boston that was settled for $8 million.  The complaint alleged that CSFB violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing analyst reports setting a $79 per share target price that lacked a reasonable basis and rating Winstar a "strong buy" without adequately disclosing the significant risks of investing in Winstar, including that Winstar needed to raise more than $3 billion to fund its business plan and that it might not be able to raise the necessary funds. The complaint further alleges that CSFB touted its "independent research" but failed to disclose that it actually used its analyst reports to obtain lucrative fees for its investment banking business. On April 28, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against CSFB in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which alleged, among other things, that CSFB issued analyst reports concerning Winstar in 2001 that lacked a reasonable basis for its stock target price, inadequately disclosed the risk of investing in Winstar, and violated NASD and NYSE regulations.


Citigroup/ECLN Litigation

The firm was class counsel representing a class of institutional investors that had purchased notes linked to Enron's credit.  The lawsuit, which asserted claims under the federal securities laws against Citigroup and various related investment banking interests, was consolidated into the multi-district litigation which had been created following Enron's bankruptcy.  Thereafter, the firm negotiated to merge its lawsuit into the primary Enron shareholder litigation, thereby enabling a class-wide settlement with Citigroup to proceed.


Pension Reserves Investment Trust Fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., et al., United States District Court Southern District of California

Between 1991 and 1999, the firm represented the Massachusetts State Pension Fund in a securities fraud action against Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case arose out of the Pension Fund's investment in a start-up film company by the name of "Weintraub Entertainment Group" and Bear Stearns' placement of approximately $85 million of Weintraub Entertainment Group debentures with a number of its clients, including the Pension Fund. The case was consolidated and tried with a class action arising out of the same private placement. In that case, the firm obtained a $6.5 million jury award against Bear Stearns after a 4-week trial. The case later settled during the pendency of Bear Stearns' appeal from the entry of the jury verdict.


In re Lotus Development Corp. Securities Litigation

The firm was co-lead counsel in a class action suit brought against Lotus Development Corporation for alleged securities fraud that was settled for $7.5 million. The complaint alleged that Lotus made false and misleading statements concerning inventory levels maintained by its European distributors, and the anticipated favorable financial performance for the second quarter and the 1994 fiscal year. These statements caused the price of Lotus stock to be artificially inflated. Lotus denied reports that it had excessive inventory levels, even though Lotus was aware of excessive inventory levels among its European distributors.


In re Molten Metal Technologies Securities Litigation

The firm was one of two co-lead counsel in this securities fraud class action which was settled for $11.1 million. The case involved complex technological issues relating to Molten Metal's claims as to the ability of its technology to process and recycle hazardous wastes.


Chalverus v. Pegasystems Inc., et al.

The firm was one of three law firms that represented the plaintiff class in this class action involving improper recognition of revenue from a software licensing contract. The case was settled for $5.25 million.


In re PictureTel Corporation Securities Litigation

A settlement was reached with Picturetel for $12 million. The complaint alleged that defendants overstated net income, revenues, and earnings per share by recognizing revenue in violation of standard accounting principles and PictureTel's stated revenue recognition principles. Specifically, defendants improperly recognized revenue for products that were not shipped to customers during the quarter in which the revenue was recognized, from products shipped to customers who had the unilateral right to return products, and from products shipped to customers subject to contingent liabilities, payment contingencies, or payment uncertainties.


Zeid v. Open Environment Corporation

The firm was lead counsel in this securities fraud class action involving improper revenue recognition, which was settled for $6 million.


In re Inso Corp. Securities Litigation

The firm was one of two counsel representing a class in this securities fraud action which alleged improper revenue recognition. The case was settled for $12 million.


In re Kendall Square Securities Litigation

Working together with several other law firms, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP was successful in achieving settlements totaling over $16.8 million for shareholders of Kendall Square Research Corporation, a now-defunct supercomputer manufacturer in Waltham, Massachusetts. The suit alleged that officers and directors of Kendall Square deliberately overstated sales and revenues from the company's supercomputer products, and that these actions inflated the price of the company's common stock. Among the settling defendants was Price Waterhouse LLP, which had served as the company's outside auditors and had certified the company's public financial statements.


Morton v. Kurzweil Applied Intelligence

The firm served as co-lead counsel in this action, which settled for $7.5 million in cash and Kurzweil common stock.


In re Cambridge Biotech Corp. Securities Litigation

The firm served on the executive committee in this class action and recovered a settlement of approximately $1 million in cash, plus common stock equal to 25 percent of the equity in the company.


In re Whalen

This was a complex securities fraud action on behalf of bondholders who had purchased $10 million of industrial revenue development bonds which were used to fund construction of a hotel outside of Denver, Colorado. There were over 60 defendants in the case, including underwriters, lawyers, numerous Oklahoma Savings & Loan Associations, and the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) as Receiver for some savings and loan associations which had been placed in receivership. In representing the interests of the class, we not only litigated and settled, on very favorable terms, the securities fraud claims against the defendants, we also located a buyer for, and negotiated the sale of, the hotel which was the collateral for the bonds. As a result of our efforts, over 80 percent of the bondholders' losses were recovered.


In re First Commodity Corporation of Boston Customer Accounts Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP successfully represented a class who were victimized by a "boiler room" commodities trading operation. The corporate defendant, First Commodity Corporation of Boston ("FCCB"), had no appreciable assets; rather, the major assets were in the hands of two owners of FCCB, and proving liability against them was a very difficult task. An extremely complex settlement was reached, involving unusual class action issues, including the limited use of a mandatory class to preclude future punitive damage claims. This measure was required in order to persuade the owners to fund the settlement.


Holton v. L. F. Rothschild

The firm represented a class of limited partners in ten oil and gas limited partnerships in suits against the sponsor of the partnerships and its principal officers, a broker-dealer that sold partnership interests, and the partnerships' accountants, law firms and engineering experts. After six years of litigation, the firm achieved a series of settlements totaling over $15 million for the class.


In re Microcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

The firm was one of two lead counsel in this securities fraud class action. The case was settled for $6 million shortly before the scheduled commencement of trial.


Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chatterjee

This is a case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the defendants to recover profits obtained by the defendants through unlawful insider trading.  At the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Court appointed Edward F. Haber the Receiver in this action.  As Receiver Mr. Haber took custody of the Disgorgement Fund. Mr. Haber had the responsibility to approve or disapprove claims made against the Disgorgement Fund, applying the criteria established in the Plan of Distribution submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and approved by the Court.  As Receiver he was also responsible for administering the distribution of the Disgorgement Fund to the approved claimants.


United States Trust Company of New York, et al., v. Albert, et al., and Investors Fiduciary Trust Company v. Jenner, et al.

These interpleader actions were brought by the plaintiff trust companies involving over $100 million dollars received by the plaintiffs as Trustees of several unit investment trusts. At issue is which combination of three groups of potential claimants are entitled to those funds. On July 25, 1995, United States Magistrate Judge Sharon E. Grubin recommended that Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP be appointed lead counsel for one of the three defendant classes, noting that the firm "has extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, including as lead counsel. Haber, as well as the others in his firm, have impressive academic and professional credentials, including teaching and lecturing on securities litigation and other areas." (Report and Recommendation, July 25, 1995, at 35-36 and 37 and 42).


U.S. West, Inc. v. MacAllister, et. al.

This was a class and derivative action arising from $10 million in fines assessed against U. S. West, one of the "Baby Bells" which was created in the court-approved break of American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T). Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP was co-lead counsel for the derivative plaintiffs and the class. In his decision approving the settlement of this action Judge Lewis T. Babcock commended the efforts and results of the firm and co-counsel, noting that "Counsel who have been involved in this case come with a wealth of experience and skill in prosecuting class actions, derivative actions in the field and have expanded this skill and experience to address the rather novel issues that have been presented here." (CCH Federal Securities Law Reporter [1992-1993 Transfer Binder], at page 95,237)


Wells, et al. v. Monarch Capital Corporation, et al.

Monarch Capital was an unregulated holding company which owned all of the stock of the Monarch Life Insurance Company, a regulated life insurance company. The action centers around the defendants' failure to disclose the parent corporation's unlawful transfer of over $100 million from its life insurance subsidiary to Monarch Capital. Settlement has been reached for approximately $5 million with the officers and directors of Monarch Capital and Monarch Life. Claims against the auditors of the life insurance company and its parent remain.


Slavin, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al.

This was a securities fraud class action arising from the underwriting of subordinated notes for Bank of New England Corporation. Our firm together with one other firm achieved an $8.4 million settlement with the three underwriters.


In re Bank of New England Corporation Class Action Litigation

As liaison counsel and class settlement counsel in this securities fraud class action against certain officers and directors of Bank of New England Corporation, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP had the primary role in negotiating a settlement of $6.5 million for the class. The settlement negotiations were particularly complicated in that the FDIC and the Bankruptcy Trustee of Bank of New England Corporation were competing claimants against a limited insurance policy, which was the only available source of recovery.


Fulco, et al. v. Continental Cablevision, et al.

The firm served as co-lead counsel in this proceeding. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and the class in the amount of $4.6 million following a three-week jury trial. The case was thereafter settled for $6.2 million, representing the amount of the verdict, plus an agreed upon amount of prejudgment interest
 

FIDUCIARY FRAUD

The firm represented the beneficiary of a trust in a suit against her trustee alleging that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty by, among other things, taking kickbacks on the sale of trust property, diverting trust assets, and double billing for services. After a four-day trial, the Court ordered a return of funds to our client. Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court terminated the trust and turned over its substantial real estate holdings to our client.

 

FRANCHISE FRAUD

In Olivo v. American Fluid Technologies, et al., Shapiro Haber & Urmy obtained a substantial settlement for a group of small businesses that were defrauded in the purchase of antifreeze recycling franchises. The group sued the franchisor, the manufacturer of the recycling equipment, and the manufacturer of the chemicals used in the recycling process. Through an intensive review of documents and depositions of numerous company officials, the firm obtained evidence that the defendants knew, almost from the time they began to sell the franchises, that the recycling process did not produce the promised product.

 

HOSPITAL OVERCHARGING

Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented the Boston Law firm of Lubin & Meyer, P.C. in Lubin & Meyer P.C., et al. v. Hospital Correspondence Corporation, et al. in a lawsuit against numerous Massachusetts hospitals and their copy services, alleging excessive per-page copy charges for medical records requested by law firms representing current and former patients. The typical copy charge to law firms of $0.62 per page was deemed excessive. The firm successfully argued that the charges violated a Massachusetts law regarding payment of a "reasonable" fee. Similar cases are pending in Ohio and California.

 

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING

Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully represented several businesses in a class action against a major credit card processing company alleging that the company overcharged merchants with respect to the rental of credit card processing equipment. The firm recovered 100% of the damages owed to the class members, with interest.