JD Supra contributor, Izard Nobel is a class action law firm that represents investors, employees, consumers, businesses and others hurt by corporate wrongdoing. Its practice is focused on four areas:
- Investor protection, such as stock fraud, mismanagement, excessive compensation and broker policies;
- Retirement plans, including losses in retirement, 401(k) and health plans;
- Consumer protection, such as stock fraud, mismanagement, excessive compensation and broker policies; and
- Anti-trust/unfair business, including unfair trade and competition, price fixing and monopolization.
Izard Nobel has shared a multitude of court filings and decisions from its class action practice that unequivocally demonstrate its expertise and success in litigating each of these kinds of actions. Among others, the filings and decisions from the AOL Time Warner Securities and ERISA class action litigation in which it (along with co-lead counsel) achieved a $100 million settlement for the class members.
And, Izard Nobel’s latest Hot Docs – two decisions in favor of its class plaintiffs – are no exception:
- A 9th Circuit decision in the case of Berson v. Applied Signal Technology, holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim of securities fraud where the defendant allegedly included work for which the government had issued "stop work orders" in its calculation of anticipated revenue from "backlog" work orders. The underlying legal arguments Izard Nobel presented, which lead to this success, is also available here. (Where else but in the practice of law could there be an arguable question of whether a representation regarding the existence of backlog work orders is a "forward looking" statement?)
- A California district court decision in In Re First American Corp. ERISA litigation, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of employees of First American Corp. whose 401(k) Plans declined sharply in value due to investment in First American stock. Izard Nobel participated with co-counsel in this briefing in which the Court found plaintiffs had adequately stated a claim under ERISA by alleging (1) that defendants were fiduciaries of the Plan; (2) that the price of First American’s stock had become artificially inflated through false or misleading information provided by company executives; (3) that it was a breach of fiduciary duty for the fiduciaries to purchase or maintain imprudent investments in artificially inflated stock; and (4) that defendants had a duty to provide true and accurate information about investments to Plan Participants.