Securities

Silverman v. Motorola, Inc.,  07 04507 (N.D. Ill.).  The firm commenced a class action on behalf of purchasers of Motorola, Inc. securities during the period between July 19, 2006 and January 4, 2007 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Motorola publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

The complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola’s poor financial performance had depressed its stock price to below $19 per share. In order to artificially inflate the price of Motorola stock, defendants began a series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants repeatedly told investors to expect strong growth in sales and revenues. On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorola had failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result of this announcement, Motorola’s stock price declined over 7% in two trading days. Then on January 4, 2007, defendants announced that Motorola’s fourth quarter 2006 results also failed to meet expectations. This time, the Company’s stock price declined almost 8%.

Hafron v. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., et al., 07 3184 (E.D.N.Y.).  Miller Law LLC commenced a class action against American Home Mortgage on behalf of purchasers of AHM securities between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007. The complaint seeks to recover damages because defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing an increasing level of loan delinquencies which was depressing its earnings; (ii) that the Company was experiencing increasing difficulties in selling its loans and, therefore, was required to decrease prices, thereby reducing margins and profits; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was overstating its financial results by failing to write-down the value of certain of the loans in its portfolio as these loans had declined substantially in value. 

Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Sirva, Inc., et al., 04 C 7644 (N.D.Ill.).  A $53 million settlement was approved in this national securities class action which sought recovery from the defendant for violations of the securities laws because of the alleged failure to disclose to the investing public the true financial condition of the  company.  Mr. Miller served as Plaintiffs’ liaison counsel at the request of Lead counsel.

In re Sears, Roebuck and Co Securities Litigation, No. 02 C 07527. Sears, Roebuck settled a class action lawsuit for $215 million in a case brought by shareholders. The case alleged breach of fiduciary duty for failing to prevent improper bankruptcy collection practices under the company’s debt reaffirmation agreements. Mr. Miller served as plaintiff’s liaison counsel in this nationwide securities case.

In re Bank One Shareholders Class Actions, No. 00 880 (N.D. Ill.).  In this securities fraud class action against Bank One and certain officers, Judge Milton I. Shadur appointed Mr. Miller to draft the Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  At the request of court-appointed lead counsel, Mr. Miller served as Plaintiffs’ liaison counsel.  Judge Shadur subsequently approved a  $45 million settlement.  

Danis v. USN Communications, Inc., No. 98 C 7482 (N.D. Ill.).  Securities fraud class action arising out of the collapse and eventual bankruptcy of USN Communications, Inc.  The court approved a $44.7 million settlement with certain  control persons and underwriters.  Reported decisions:  73 F. Supp. 2d 923 (N.D. Ill. 1999); 189 F.R.D. 391 (N.D. Ill. 1999); 121 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (N.D. Ill. 2000).  At the request of Co-Lead Counsel, Mr. Miller served as liaison counsel for Plaintiffs.

In re Caremark International Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 94 4751 (N.D. Ill.).  This action arose out of Caremark’s allegedly improper financial arrangements with physicians.  A $25 million settlement concluded the litigation.

In re Nuveen Fund Litig., No. 94 360 (N.D. Ill.).  Class action and derivative suit under the Investment Company Act arising out of coercive tender offerings in two closed-end mutual funds. 

In re Archer-Daniels-Midland, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 95 2287 (C.D. Ill.).  A class action arising out of the Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing scandal.  Plaintiffs brought claims for securities law violations which settled for $30 million.

Hoxworth v. Blinder Robinson & Co., 88-0285 (E.D. Pa.).  A securities fraud and RICO class action resulting from alleged manipulative practices and boiler-room operations in the sale of “penny stocks.”  Judgment in excess of $70 million was entered and that judgment was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 980 F.2d 912 (3rd Cir. 1992).  See also Hoxworth v. Blinder, 74 F.3d 205 (10th Cir. 1996).

In re Prudential Securities Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litig., MDL 1005 (S.D.N.Y.).  A nationwide multi-district class action arising out of Prudential Securities Incorporated’s marketing and sale of speculative limited partnership interests.  The final settlements produced an aggregate of more than $132 million for injured investors.

Horton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 91-276-CIV-5-D (E.D.N.C.).  A multi-million dollar settlement was approved in this securities fraud class action arising out of a broker’s marketing of a speculative Australian security.  The Court stated that “the experience of class counsel warrants affording their judgment appropriate deference in determining whether to approve the proposed settlement.”  855 F. Supp. 825, 831 (E.D.N.C. 1994).

In re Salton/Maxim Sec. Litig., No. 91 7693 (N.D. Ill.).  Class action arising out of public offering of Salton/Maxim Housewares, Inc. stock.  On September 23, 1994, Judge James S. Holderman (now Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) approved a multi-million dollar settlement achieved for the class, commenting that “it was a pleasure to preside over [the case] because of the skill and the quality of the lawyering on everyone’s part in connection with the case.”

In re VMS Sec. Litig., 89 9448 (N.D. Ill.).  Securities fraud class action and derivative suit relating to publicly traded real estate investments.  The court certified a plaintiff class and subclasses of approximately 100,000 members, 136 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Ill. 1991) and approved a class and derivative settlement worth $98 million.

In re Telesphere Sec. Litig., 89 1875 (N.D. Ill.)   In his opinion approving a class action settlement,  Judge Milton I. Shadur referred to Marvin A. Miller as “…an experienced securities law class action litigator and who also has 20 years [now 37 years] practice under his belt.  This Court has seen the quality of that lawyer’s work in other litigation, and it is first-rate.”  753 F.Supp. 716, 719 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 

In re Baldwin-United Corporation Sec. Litig., MDL-581, (S.D.N.Y.). In this early multi-district  securities class action, Plaintiffs counsel advanced the novel issue of whether Single Premium Deferred Annuities sold by the stock brokerage industry were securities and the sale of approximately $4.2 billion of were in violation of the federal and state securities laws.  A $180 million settlement was obtained was the largest securities class action settlements at the time and remains one of the larger securities class action settlements on record.  In awarding interim counsel fees, Judge Charles Brieant commented “…that plaintiffs’ attorneys [including Marvin A. Miller as co-lead counsel] had rendered extremely valuable services with diligence, energy and imagination, and are entitled to just compensation.”