On May 16, 2011, Judge Richard A. Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court granted final approval of the settlement in Gewalt v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. CGC-07-469792. The Schubert Firm served as Class Counsel in the case. The complaint alleged that the defendants deceptively advertised and failed to honor their promises to rebate the price of modems that were purchased by California customers in conjunction with DSL service from AT&T, in violation of California law. In response to this case, AT&T has already paid over $3.5 million to over 69,000 California AT&T customers. The settlement provided for a claims process for all remaining unpaid and late rebate payments on DSL modems to California AT&T customers. Over 25,000 persons submitted claim forms, and payments to the Class Members are expected to be completed in September 2011.
Please visit the settlement website for more information.
The Schubert Firm is co-counsel in the settlement of an alleged options backdating fraud by Juniper Networks, Inc. (JNPR). The complaint alleged claims that Juniper fraudulently backdated stock options, in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The $169 Million settlement is subject to approval by United States District Judge James J. Ware of the Northern District of California.
» Read the Settlement Notice.
The Schubert Firm as co-derivative counsel helped obtain a $205 million settlement in a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC). The complaint alleged that MMC, the world’s largest insurance broker, failed to adequately disclose to its clients that it was paid contingent commissions to steer insurance business to favored insurance companies. When these practices were revealed, MMC agreed to pay huge fines, to the detriment of its shareholders.
In upholding plaintiff’s shareholder derivative complaint against a former i2 Technologies, Inc. (ITWO) officer, Delaware Chancellor William Chandler ruled that plaintiff had adequately alleged that the Board’s negligence in approving the sale of a subsidiary to the officer demonstrated that its actions were not a valid exercise of its business judgment. The Chancellor then held that officers owe their corporations identical fiduciary duties as do directors.
» Read the full opinion, McPadden v. Sidhu, 964 A.2d 1262 (Del. Ch. 2008).