Current Cases

IPO Antitrust Litigation

In re IPO Antitrust Litigation, 287 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (dismissing complaint), vacated, 426 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2005) (vacating dismissal and remanding for further proceedings), reversed, 551 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2007).   This appeal was argued before the U.S. Supreme court on March 27, 2007 by Christopher Lovell of this firm. See Supreme Court website or Click Here for the Court’s opinion.

In reversing the Court of Appeals and dismissing the federal antitrust claims, the Supreme Court determined that antitrust enforcement adds little in the IPO area, which is extensively regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  It further noted that the SEC has brought enforcement actions arising from the activities challenged here, and that private litigants, too, have brought securities actions complaining of this conduct.  Indeed, the Court found that investors “have obtained damages” in the IPO Securities cases.  Slip opinion at 11.  The Court is not entirely correct as to the last point, however, because no final approval has been given to the settlement described immediately below, nor to the issuer settlement in the IPO Securities case.

This proposed class action was brought on behalf of purchasers between March 9, 1997 and December 6, 2000 of eight hundred twenty-nine securities who allegedly paid inflated charges and inflated prices.  For information, contact Gary S. Jacobson, Esq. at GSJacobson@lshllp.com or Ian T. Stoll, Esq. at ITStoll@lshllp.com.

IPO Securities Litigation

In re IPO Securities Litigation, 241 F. Supp.2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (motions to dismiss these consolidated class actions alleging manipulation and non-disclosure were denied in substantial part and granted in part); 227 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (motion for class certification of six forms of cases granted).

Defendants were allowed to appeal the grant of class certification.  Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co., No. 04-8026 (2d Cir. June 30, 2005).  In a decision dated December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and denied class certification.  471 F.3d 24 (2nd Cir. 2006).  By an order dated April 6, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.  For information, contact Ian T. Stoll, Esq. at ITStoll@lshllp.com or go to the case website. www.iposecuritieslitigation.com

XM Satellite Radio

In re XM Satellite Radio Litigation, Master Docket 06 Civ. 3733 (Judge Lewis A. Kaplan) (S.D.N.Y.).  This is a class action on behalf all persons and entities in the United States who own (i) a sound recording protected under federal copyright law or under state common law and/or unfair competition law or (ii) a copyrighted musical composition or a portion thereof, or is a beneficial owner of a copyrighted musical composition, that was unlawfully reproduced and/or distributed by Defendant XM Radio’s XM + MP3 service during the time period April 1, 2006 and the present. 
Defendant answered the complaint on March 12, 2007.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher M. McGrath at (212) 608-1900.

Sirius Satellite Radio

Nota Music Publishing, Inc., et al. v. Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., 07 CV 6307 (Alvin K. Hellerstein) (S.D.N.Y.).  This is a class action on behalf all persons and entities in the United States who own (i) a sound recording protected under federal copyright law or under state common law and/or unfair competition law or (ii) a copyrighted musical composition or a portion thereof, or is a beneficial owner of a copyrighted musical composition, that was unlawfully reproduced and/or distributed by Defendant during the time period November 1, 2005 to the present.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher M. McGrath at (212) 608-1900.

YouTube

The Football Association Premier League Limited, et. al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., 07CV 3582 (Louis L. Stanton) (S.D.N.Y.).  This is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that own copyrighted works which been displayed without permission on the YouTube.com website.    Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered injunction to prohibit the Defendants from continuing to violate various laws designed to protect the intellectual property rights of copyright owners and unspecified money damages for the Defendants' past copyright violations.
Defendants answered the complaint on December 3, 2007.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher M. McGrath at (212) 608-1900.

In Re Rediff.com India Ltd. Securities Litigation

In Re Rediff.com India Ltd. Securities Litigation is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Rediff American Depository Shares between June 14, 2000 and April 4, 2001.  Plaintiffs allege essentially two different types of claims:

1. Misrepresentation of facts relating to the business and prospective business of Rediff; and

2. Unlawful tie-in and laddering conduct by the underwriting defendants which all defendants failed to disclose and which artificially inflated the prices of Rediff common stock. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied on October 15, 2004.  See In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 358 F.Supp.2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).  As discovery was about to close, plaintiffs reached a settlement with the issuer defendants for the sum of $2,500,000.  The claims against the underwriter defendants regarding alleged unlawful tie ins and laddering, and the failure to disclose same, will continue and not be settled or released by the settlement with the issuer defendants. 

The court approved a form of class notice on April 13, 2007. See Rediff Case website  On June 15, the date for objections passed.  No class member objected but the underwriter defendants have objected to the settlement and to the payment to class members by Rediff.

Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Lititgation

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Litigation 06 MD 01775 (E.D.N.Y.) (JG) (VVP) is a class action alleging that over 30 defendants that provide air cargo shipping services worldwide conspired to fix, raise, or maintain prices of their shipping services in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state antitrust laws.  The proposed class period is from January 1, 2000 through the present for purchasers of air cargo shipping services from the defendants.  Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Swiss International Air Lines have reached a settlement with Plaintiffs in the amount of $85 million that is subject to approval of the Court.  For more information contact Imtiaz Siddiqui at (212) 608-1900.

Global Crossing Ltd. Securities Litigation

In re Global Crossing Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-910 (S.D.N.Y.) (GEL).  This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of persons who purchased Global Crossing securities between February 1, 1999 through December 8, 2003, inclusive, either in the open market or through certain public offerings.  To date, certain defendants have settled the securities plaintiffs' claims against them for $345 million.  Certain defendants, who have not settled, have moved to dismiss.  Such motions are pending.  For further information, you may contact either John Halebian, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.  You may also locate settlement documents, orders and pleadings for this case at www.globalcrossinglitigation.com.

Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al.

Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., 01 Civ. 3137, is a class action alleging violations of antitrust laws by DeBeers for fixing the prices of diamonds and monopolizing the diamond market.  This action was agreed to be settled with defendants on January 22, 2006.  The settlement has been preliminarily approved and the action transferred to the District Court of New Jersey.  As a result, DeBeers is voluntarily subject to abide by an injunction.  For copies of the injunction or information about the $285,000,000 in preliminarily but not finally approved settlements, contact Jody R. Krisiloff, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") Antitrust Litigation

In re Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.), proposed price-fixing class action on behalf of direct purchasers of DRAM computer chips from defendant manufacturers.  Settlements in excess of $313,000,000 have been obtained.  Refer to web site for the class action.  For more information, contact Gary S. Jacobson, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

The plaintiffs allege that the major producers of chocolate candy bars and other chocolate confections conspired and colluded to price fix chocolate candies at artificially high levels during the Class Period (December 9, 2002 to the present).  Indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that the chocolate manufacturer defendants violated various State antitrust and consumer protection laws.  Lovell Stewart Halebian has been appointed by the Court as one of two co-lead interim counsel.  Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim that is currently pending.  For more information contact Craig Essenmacher at 212-608-1900.

Aftermarket Filter Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs are alleging that various manufacturers of aftermarket filters used in the auto industry such as oil filters fixed prices at artificially high levels through collusion and conspiracy.  The proposed Class Period runs from January 1, 1999 through the present.  Indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that defendant manufacturers have violated various State antitrust and consumer protection statutes by engaging in collusive price fixing activities in the aftermarket filter market.  The cases have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois.  Lovell Stewart Halebian has been appointed by the Court as one of four co-lead counsel for the Indirect purchaser proposed class.  If you have further questions please contact Peggy Wedgworth at 212-608-1900.

Illinois Electricity Rates

Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the Illinois State Circuit Court for Cook County on behalf of purchasers of electricity in the State of Illinois from Ameren Companies or Commonwealth Edison Company from January 2, 2007 through March 27, 2007. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants manipulated electricity auctions and as a result consumers have been forced to pay supra-competitive prices for electricity in the State of Illinois. On December 21, 2007 the District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the action. The motion was granted without prejudice. See Court Opinion. For further information contact Imtiaz Siddiqui at (212) 608-1900.

In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation

In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation, 96 Civ. 4584 (S.D.N.Y.) (RMB).  The distributions of $149,000,000 in settlements are final.  Default judgments entered against various defendants but no sums have been collected; absent such collections, no further distributions will be made.

Natural Gas Commodities Litigation

In re Natural Gas Commodities Litigation, 337 F. Supp.2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying joint motion to dismiss); 358 F. supp.2d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (denying separate motion to dismiss); 231 F.R.D. 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (certifying class of persons who purchased or sold NYMEX natural gas futures contracts between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2002); Judgment entered May 24, 2006 (approving partial settlements).  Further settlements have been preliminarily but not finally approved.  The total amount in settlements in this case is $100,800,000.  For further information, contact Gary S. Jacobson, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Digital Music Antitrust

In re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, No. 06 MD 1780 (Judge Loretta A. Preska).  This is a proposed class action on behalf of purchasers of digital music, who allegedly paid inflated prices between December 4, 2001 and present. The Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on June 13, 2007.  For more information, contact Imtiaz Siddiqui, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

In Re Rambus Antitrust Litigation

In Re Rambus Antitrust Litigation is a class action alleging violations of various state antitrust and consumer fraud statutes for purchasers of SDRAM, DDR SDRAM and/or DDR2 SDRAM from January 1, 1998 to the present.  Defendant has a motion to dismiss pending and the hearing on the motion was held on July 27, 2007.  The Court has tentatively ruled for Plaintiffs on the motion to dismiss on the grounds of Noerr-Pennington doctrine, federal conflict preemption, and Cal Civ. Code §47(b).  For further information contact Craig Essenmacher at 212-608-1900.

British Petroleum Propane

Dennison, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., 06 CV 3541 (Judge James B. Zagel).  This is a proposed class action on behalf of purchasers of propane, who allegedly paid inflated prices between April 1 to April 30, 2003 and January 1 to July 31, 2004.  For more information, contact Imtiaz Siddiqui, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Avista Corp. Securities Litigation

In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-00328 (FVS) (E.D. Wa. Aug. 3, 2004).  This is a securities fraud class action for persons who purchased Avista stock between November 23, 1999 and August 13, 2003.  Defendants' original motions to dismiss were denied in their entirety in 2004 and discovery ensued.  Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss based on loss causation was granted with leave to replead on October 19, 2005.  Plaintiffs re-pled the complaint.

A tentative settlement in the amount of $9,500,000 has been reached.  The court then denied the renewed motion to dismiss.  For information, contact Ian T. Stoll, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Fiala v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Fiala v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., Index No. 601181/00 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County).  This class action on behalf of policyholders of MetLife at the time that it demutualized, alleges that defendants failed to disclose material facts relating to an alleged stock buy-back plan in connection with the demutualization of MetLife.  The motion for class certification has been granted as to a class of persons who held MetLife policies as at November 29, 1999.  Discovery is concluding but no trial date has been set.  For information, contact Jody R. Krisiloff, Esq. at jkrisiloff@lshllp.com or Pia Kappy, Esq. at pkappy@lshllp.com.

Kohen et al. v. Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC

Kohen, et al. v. Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC, No. 05 CV 4681 (Judge Ronald A. Guzman).  This is a class action on behalf of persons who liquidated their short positions in June 2005 10 year Treasury Note future contracts between May 9 and June 30, 2005.  Discovery has concluded.  For more information, contact Imtiaz Siddiqui, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

NYSE Specialist Securities Litigation

In re NYSE Specialist Securities Litigatino, 03 CV 8264.  This is a proposed class action on behalf of all persons who transacted in New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") listed securities between January 1, 1999 to October 17, 2003.  On December 13, 2005, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  For information, contact Imtiaz Siddiqui at (212) 608-1900.

Deepdale Stockholder Derivative Litigation

Deepdale Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 04-CV-0657 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.).  A shareholder and former director of Real Properties Owners, Inc. brought a derivative action alleging that the current directors breeched their fiduciary duties to the corporation and shareholders by committing corporate waste and mismanaging the company's sold asset, Deepdale, a golf course in North Hills, Long Island, N.Y.  The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, in part.  Patrick v. Allen, 355 F. Supp.2d 704 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).  Discovery is ongoing.  For information, contact John Halebian, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Hyland, et al. v. Homeservices of America, Inc. et al.

Hyland, et al. v. Homeservices of America, Inc., et al., 05-CV-612 (W.D.Ky.), is a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or sold real estate in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from January 1, 1991 to the present.  The complaint alleges violations of antitrust laws for fixing real estate broker commissions and associated fees and refusing to compete on the basis of price in real estate transactions.  Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint and a decision is pending.  For further information, contact Ian T. Stoll, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Loughlin and Kemp v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Loughlin and Kemp v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 06 CIV 2835 (ADS) (E.D.N.Y.2006) and Traitz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 06 CV 0378 (JCL)(ES) (D.N.J. 2006); Loughlin involves a wage and hour class action on behalf of Merrill Lynch stock brokers in New York for overtime compensation and improper business deductions and charges.  Plaintiffs seek damages for violations of the New York Labor Law and the New York State Labor Department’s Codes, Rules and Regulations, including inter alia, 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2 and N. Y. Lab. Law § 193.  Traitz is both a wage and hour collective action on behalf of Merrill Lynch stock brokers nationwide, seeking damages for violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207, as well as a class action under the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a through 34:11:56a30, and its implementing regulations.  These cases and several others have been settled in principle on a nationwide basis.  The settlement amount is presently subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Morich and Lowe v. Wachovia Corp., et al.

Morich and Lowe v. Wachovia Corp. et al., 06 CV 136 (DOC)(RB) (C.D.Cal. 2006) involves a nationwide wage and hour class and collective action on behalf of Wachovia stock brokers for overtime compensation and improper business deductions and charges.  Plaintiffs seek damages for violations of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and several provisions of the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder.  This action and numerous other related actions were recently ordered by the Panel on Multi-District Litigation to be transferred (if not already there) to the Central District of California.  The action is in its preliminary stages.

Fryer v. Banc of America Investment Services, Inc., et al.

Fryer v. Banc of America Investment Services, Inc., et al.,06 CV 2664 (SJF)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. 2006) involves a nationwide wage and hour collective and class action on behalf of Banc of America stock brokers for overtime compensation and improper business deductions and charges.  This action seeks damages for violations of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, and the New York Labor Law and New York State Labor Department’s Codes, Rules and Regulations, including inter alia, 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2 and New York Labor Law § 193.  This action and several other related actions were recently ordered by the Panel on Multi-District Litigation to be transferred to the Central District of California.  There have not been any substantive proceedings in this action.  While certain plaintiffs and defendants have represented that this action was settled in principle since August, 2006, no proposed settlement has ever been submitted to the court for preliminary approval.

Incitti v. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC

Incitti v. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC,06 CV 3969 (CG) (E.D.Penn. 2006) involves a nationwide wage and hour class and collective action on behalf of Janney Montgomery Scott stock brokers for overtime compensation and improper business deductions and charges.  This action seeks damages for violations of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, and the Pennsylvania Labor Laws including inter alia, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. §§260.1, et seq. and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. §§333.101, etseq.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint which was opposed by plaintiffs.

Hyman, et al. v. WM Financial Services, Inc.

Hyman, et al. v. WM Financial Services, Inc.,06 CV 4038 (WJM) (D.N.J. 2006) involves a nationwide wage and hour class and collective action on behalf of Washington Mutual  stock brokers for overtime compensation and improper business deductions and charges.  This action seeks damages for violations of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a through 34:11:56a30, and its implementing regulations.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint which was opposed by plaintiffs.

Krichman and Howell v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.

Krichman and Howell v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.,06 CV 15305 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. 2006) involves a nationwide wage and hour class and collective action on behalf of JP Morgan Chase  stock brokers for overtime compensation and improper business deductions and charges.  This action seeks damages for violations of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, and the New York Labor Law and New York State Labor Department’s Codes, Rules and Regulations, including inter alia, 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2 and New York Labor Law Section 193.  This action is in its preliminary stages as defendants have not yet had the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

American Express Co. Securities Litigation

In re American Express Co. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-5533 (WHP), 2004 WL 632750 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2004).  This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of persons who bought the common stock of American Express between July 26, 1999 and July 17, 2001, inclusive.  The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs appealed.  The Court of Appeals reversed 460 F.3d 215 (2nd Cir. 2006).  Plaintiffs have re-pleaded the complaint.  Defendants' remanded motion is pending.

Leykin v. AT&T Corp., et al. (Excite At Home)  

Leykin v. AT&T Corp., et al. (Excite At Home), 02 Civ. 1765 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.).  This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of persons who purchased At Home stock between March 28, 2000 and September 28, 2001.  See decisions dated Sept. 17, 2003 and Feb. 25, 2004 (granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss).  Discovery went forward.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted for a class of purchasers of At Home stock between March 29, 2000 through September 28, 2001, inclusive.  Based on new documents in discovery, Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to start the Class Period on November 8, 1999.  Defendants opposed the motion and moved to dismiss on loss causation and other grounds.  The dismissal motions were granted on March 23, 2006.  The petition for rehearing on appeal was denied. For more information, contact Craig Essenmacher, Esq. at cessenmacher@lshllp.com.

J.P. Morgan Chase Securities Litigation

In re J.P. Morgan Chase Securities Litigation, 363 F. Supp.2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (granting motion to dismiss this Rule 10b-5 class action on behalf of purchasers of JP Morgan stock between January 2, 2001 and July 23, 2002).  Plaintiffs have re-pleaded the complaint and are awaiting decision on whether the complaint is adequate.  The motion to dismiss was granted by order dated March 28, 2005.  For more information, contact Writer Clayton, Esq. at (212) 608-1900.

Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc.        

Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc., No. 04-CV-9526 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.).  This is a breach of contract class action against Ameritrade, Inc. on behalf of those who sought to execute on-line limit orders for options listed on the AMEX and who were refused executions and suffered damages from April 2, 2001 to date, inclusive.  Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff opposed Ameritrade's motion, and the motion was granted in part with leave to re-plead.  For more information, John Halebian, Esq. at jhalebian@lshllp.com.

Rabin v. MONY Life Insurance Company

Rabin v. MONY Life Insurance Company, 06 CIV. 0775 (LTS 2006) involves a class action on behalf of persons who received payments from whole life insurance policies where the money was placed into a MONY Market Account which was represented to be paying a “competitive” interest rate, when in fact the interest rates were far lower than interest rates available on comparable funds.  Plaintiff recently successfully defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in which the Court’s decision sustained four of the five claims for relief that were alleged in the complaint.  The case is presently proceeding through discovery.