Eric S. Waxman as Lead Attorney
Representative List of Cases

Cases Representing Issuers, Directors and Officers, and Underwriters in Federal Securities Class Actions, Derivative Actions and Class Claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Federal Securities Class Actions

Case Name

Claims Asserted

Court

In re Pacific Coast Oil Trust Securities Litigation

Federal securities class action under ‘33 Act alleging false and misleading statements in a Prospectus and Registration Statement

Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Panel

Representation of underwriter defendants in connection with $608 million issuance of securities.

Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al.

Federal securities class action under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, District of Arizona

Representation of officers and directors in action asserting claims for violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged stock options backdating. Motion to dismiss granted and case dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to amend or modify judgment denied.

In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation

Federal securities class action asserting claims under Securities Act of 1933 (“‘33 Act”) and Exchange Act of 1934 (“‘34 Act”)

United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division

Representation of two former outside directors with respect to claims brought under section 11 of the ‘33 Act, based on purported false and misleading statements pertaining to lending practices. Motion to dismiss granted in part; case settled after summary judgment motions filed by defendants.

In re PETCO Corporation Securities Litigation

Federal securities action asserting claims under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Southern District of California

Representation of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., an acquirer of PETCO, in action based on allegations of improper accounting, misleading projections and undisclosed operation problems.   Motion to dismiss granted and case dismissed as to Leonard Green.

Lori Weinrib v. American Land Lease, Inc. et al.

Federal securities class action arising out of leveraged buyout of American Land Lease, Inc.

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and upon filing of motion to dismiss entire action, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice and with no recovery.

In re Syncor International Corp. Securities Litigation

Securities fraud under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Central District of California

Federal securities class action alleging fraud under ‘34 Act based on purported false and misleading statements regarding reasons for growth of overseas business based on a failure to disclose improper payment in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Motion to dismiss granted to consolidated amended complaint. Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint granted with prejudice. Published opinion at 372 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Affirmed on June 12, 2007 by the Ninth Circuit as to Skadden clients only.

ICN Pharmaceuticals Securities Class Action Litigation

Securities fraud under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Central District of California

Claims for violation of ‘34 Act based on false and misleading financial statements resulting from alleged: improper revenue recognition; “channel stuffing”; and “off label” sales. Motion to dismiss granted to consolidated amended complaint. Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint granted with prejudice. Published opinion at 277 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Ninth Circuit affirmed by Memorandum Order dated June 16, 2006.

Richard Gregory v. Chiron Corporation et al.

Securities fraud under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Northern District of California

Federal securities class action asserting fraud under the ‘34 Act based on alleged misstatements regarding the amount of FLUVIRIN® vaccine Chiron projected to produce and Chiron’s historical and forecasted financial results. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and at a hearing, the court gave a strong indication of its intention to grant the motion after further briefing. Shortly thereafter, the parties settled on terms highly favorable to the Defendants.

Leonard Rosenthal v. Farmer Bros. Company et al.

Securities class action alleging violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940

United States District Court, Central District of California

Representation of Farmers Bros. Company and its board of directors in securities class action alleging violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 as well as breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff sought to enjoin the company’s ESOP from voting on a proposal to reincorporate the company in Delaware. The court denied injunctive relief and plaintiff dismissed the action.

David Rosenberg et al. v. Westfield America, Inc. et al.

Securities fraud under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, Western Division

Claims for violations of ‘34 Act, false and misleading statements contained in proxy statement arising out of going private transaction. Lawsuit settled based on modifications to disclosures and small payment to lawyers for “diligence” with respect to fairness of transaction.

Louis Silverman v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.

Securities fraud under both ‘33 and ‘34 Acts

United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Represented underwriters of Senior Mortgage Notes in securities claims brought under ‘33 Act when Casino project filed for bankruptcy. After motion to dismiss ‘33 Act claims was tentatively granted, plaintiffs in class action settled for distribution out of bankruptcy.

LB Partners, L.P. v. Neutrogena Corp. et al.

Securities fraud under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Central District of California

Suit arose out of acquisition of Neutrogena by Johnson & Johnson. Suit alleged improper disclosure of negotiations and insider trading. After a series of motions, plaintiffs demanded $10 million to settle, which we rejected and told the Court to set the matter for trial. Insurer then stepped in and negotiated a cost of defense settlement directly with plaintiffs.

Standish and Miriam Mallory et al. v. Regency Health Services

Claim for securities fraud under ‘34 Act

United States District Court, Central District of California

Claim for securities fraud under ‘34 Act. After court significantly narrowed plaintiffs’ claim to a single statement following motion to dismiss and set down Rule 11 hearing for sanctions against plaintiffs, case settled on basis extremely favorable to defendants.

Seth Stern v. SpectraVision, Inc.

Securities fraud under both ‘33 and ‘34 Acts

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Claim for securities fraud after company filed for bankruptcy approximately 14 months after selling $350 million of common stock and Senior Discount Notes. Settled well within policy limits with no contribution by wealthy individual defendant.

Fisher Bond Fund v. Marvin Davis et al.

Claim for securities fraud under both ‘33 and ‘34 Acts

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Claim based on sale of $250 million Subordinated Discount Notes. Claim brought after issuer declared bankruptcy. Case settled after Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss ‘33 Act claim, and settled well below policy limits. No contribution made by Mr. Davis or other individual defendants.

In re Oakley Securities Litigation

Federal Securities Class Action under ‘33 and ‘34 Acts

United States District Court, Central District of California

Case settled at a significant discount to policy limits following two years of intensive litigation.

In re Oakley Securities Litigation

Claim for disclosure violations under California Corporations Code, California Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange

Claim for disclosure violations under various state statutes. Following demurrer, case was narrowed to single issue and dismissed as to the underwriter defendants. Remaining portion of case was dismissed upon settlement of federal class action.

In re National Health Laboratories Securities Litigation

Claims for securities fraud under both ‘34 and ‘33 Acts

United States District Court, Southern District of California

Claims for securities fraud after company paid $100 million to federal government to settle claims for Medicare fraud and after CEO pled guilty to one criminal count. Claim alleged that company failed to adequately disclose existence and materiality of grand jury investigation. Also alleged failure to update disclosure as new facts regarding investigation emerged.

Settled after one-and-a-half years of intensive litigation with no contribution to settlement by individual defendants and only contribution from company consisting of monies company received from insurers in related derivative claim.