• Successfully represented a large IT company in a class action alleging federal securities law violations (Section 10 of the Exchange Act of 1934) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
• Represented a sportswear company in a securities class action alleging federal securities law violations (Section 10 of the Exchange Act of 1934) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
• Represented one of the world's largest banking institutions in a class action brought by shareholders of Enron Corp. claiming that several banks, including our client, were primary violators under U.S. securities laws with respect to Enron's false financial statements. Kelley Drye had responsibility for the accounting issues related to all claims, including prosecuting and defending cross claims by and against Arthur Andersen, Enron's former accountants.
• Advised one of the world's largest banking institutions on various settlement issues arising out of a securities class action brought by purchasers of WorldCom bonds. Kelley Drye's work included litigation over various provisions of the settlement agreements entered into by some of its co-defendants, including substantial litigation on the propriety of the entry of a Bar Order by the District Court. The firm continues to advise this client on individual actions brought by those plaintiffs who opted out of the WorldCom class action.
• Represented one of the world's largest banking institutions in its defense of a class action securities claim made under Sections 11 and 12, arising out of the banks role as underwriter of an initial public offering. After Kelley Drye successfully argued that the class should not be certified, the matter settled on terms which were highly favorable to our client.
• Successfully represented a manufacturing conglomerate in class action securities fraud and shareholder derivative litigation in Connecticut related to the company's active participation in an international price-fixing scheme to which it plead guilty and was fined $110 million. Kelley Drye was able to secure a dismissal of the derivative action and settled all of the securities-related litigation favorably and well within insurance limits.
• Succeeded in obtaining dismissal of two lawsuits, affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging RICO, securities fraud and common law fraud claims against one of Korea's largest banking institutions. The plaintiffs in the two related actions were former shareholders of Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. ("L&H") who claimed losses of more than $600 million when L&H declared bankruptcy. Plaintiffs claimed that L&H disseminated false financial statements, based largely on a fraud committed by L&H's Korean subsidiary and various Korean Banks including our client. Kelley Drye successfully moved to dismiss the claims on behalf of our client for failure to state a claim under U.S. securities laws and to plead fraud with particularity. The Second Circuit affirmed the "bright line" test adopted in Wright v. Ernst & Young, and also confirmed that Federal Rule 9(b) applies to state law claims sounding in fraud.

• Representing a director of one of the GSE's in shareholders' derivative actions that have been consolidated in multi-district litigation in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case alleges violations of a number of accounting rules relating to mortgages, and arises out of an investigation into accounting practices at Fannie Mae by the federal Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which led the Securities and Exchange Commission to direct our client to restate prior financial statements. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' appeal remains pending.
• Represented the former Chief Financial Officer of the owner of numerous supermarket and food service concerns worldwide, in the Royal Ahold NV Securities Litigation, one of the largest securities fraud class actions ever filed, which was consolidated in multidistrict litigation in United States District Court in Maryland. The claims related to Royal Ahold's restatement of $1.2 billion in net income as a result of vendor promotional allowance fraud at one of Royal Ahold's U.S. subsidiaries, as well as other allegations of accounting irregularities at Royal Ahold.

• Representing a major financial institution and certain of its officers and directors in class action securities fraud claims seeking over $2 billion for decline in value of institution’s stock. The case is pending in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.
• Represented a major financial institution in a class action in the District of New Jersey claiming fraud in the purchase of retirement homes in Florida. The complaint named thirty-five defendants, including some of the largest financial institutions in the world and a prestigious New York law firm, and claimed $500,000,000 in damages. We obtained dismissal of all the claims at the District Court level and prevailed in the Third Circuit.

• Representing our client in defending invasion of privacy claims in Valentine, et al. v. Nebuad, et al., asserted by putative class of internet service subscribers who participated in challenged advertising service program.
• Represented India's largest conglomerates in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
• Successfully represented various financial services companies in government enforcement and class action litigation, including, for example, a credit card issuer in litigation brought by the Department of Justice alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), and a financial services company in a class action alleging violations of RICO arising from its provision of credit card services, leading to highly favorable settlements for clients.
• Defeated class certification in a putative nationwide class action challenging one of the largest computer manufacturers' promotional rebate policies and rebate fulfillment record. Plaintiffs attempted to certify a class of all unpaid rebate applicants and represented to the court that they would move for summary judgment as soon as a class was certified. Plaintiffs were pursuing a nine-figure judgment, but we defeated class certification after an extended hearing. We established our client's rebate fulfillment record exceeds 90 percent of all rebates processed and demonstrated that the question of whether individual rebates were properly rejected requires a case-by-case investigation of each individual rebate application's history and compliance with our client's contract requirements. We did not merely argue these points. Through quantitative analysis of a representative sample of rejected rebate applications, Kelley Drye established that only individual hearings could resolve the predominating issue—whether a particular rebate application was valid or should have been rejected. With this victory, Kelley Drye built on its successful record in rebate class action certification battles.
• Represented a telecom client in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in which nine purported class actions have been consolidated. Our motion to dismiss each of the complaints was granted by the district court. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the court upheld the majority of the trial court's decision. Although the court remanded certain state law causes of action that were asserted in a few of the consolidated cases, the court fully adopted our argument that potential damages claims, if any, would be extremely circumscribed, individualized, and limited.
• Successfully defended a web-hosting company in a putative class action in the Superior Court of New Jersey against a class seeking $150 million in statutory damages. During the course of this action, we obtained rulings barring class certification in both the trial and appellate courts. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed denial of class certification.
• Led the defense of more than 30 class action cases brought against one of the largest wireless companies and its affiliates. We successfully petitioned for multidistrict litigation over the objections of several noted plaintiff class action firms, transferring over twenty cases to the Western District of Missouri. Once there, we entered a nationwide settlement with the original class plaintiff and ushered that agreement through the Western District of Missouri over the objections of several large plaintiff class action firms, and won an order staying all the remaining state cases pending final approval of the settlement. The transfer and resulting settlement was described by RCA Wireless, the industry publication, as a "major victory for Nextel." In the past year, the class action settlement was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit and an objector's petition to the Supreme Court was denied.
• Represented one of the largest ISP's in several class action suits filed in Florida, California, Oklahoma, Illinois, and New Jersey. Not one case advanced to class certification, let alone a decision on the merits. The California state appellate court issued an opinion in one of these cases that was especially important. That decision affirmed the LA County Superior Court decision sustaining our client's demurrer to the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Laws, and False and Misleading Advertising Laws. In its decision, the court adopted our reasoning in holding there was no contingent event (plaintiffs "earned and received their rebate when the purchase of the qualifying computer was consummated and the consumer signed the ISP contract") and no material omission occurred ("the law does not require defendants to offer their lowest price ISP service to its rebate applicants or to disclose the price of their other services when advertising one of them"). The decision, authored by Justice Mildred Lillie, a highly-respected jurist who has served on the court since 1958, provides favorable precedent in areas of consumer protection law that are relatively undeveloped. In fact, until this decision, there have been no prior cases under the applicable California statute (i.e., CLRA § 1770(a) (17)).
• Won an important victory for a national technology retailer when it successfully defended it against a class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, that attacked its e-mail marketing campaign. The plaintiffs class action complaint alleged that the retailer's unsolicited e-mail advertisements sent to prospective purchasers of its products constituted unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of both the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Electronic Mail Act. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the retailer because he was not actually deceived by the e-mail advertisement and because he had not purchased anything nor suffered any actual damage as a result of his receipt of the e-mail advertisement. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claim against the retailer.
• Achieved a significant victory on behalf of two telecommunications carriers, dismissing eight class action suits that were filed against them in courts across the country. Each of the class action complaints were based on allegations of misleading and deceptive telemarketing and advertising practices, and asserted claims under the Federal Communications Act and state fraud law.
• Successfully defended a class action suit against a telecommunications carrier alleging claims of fraud under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The District Court dismissed all of plaintiff's claims and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. We also successfully defeated the plaintiff's petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
• Defended a telecom client in a class action brought in Washington state court.
• Represented a large telecommunications firm in an action brought in Alabama federal court on behalf of nationwide purchasers of certain equipment which was alleged to be non-complaint with industry standards. Successfully opposed class certification and the case quickly settled.

• Represent a subsidiary of one of the largest media conglomerates in a large consumer class action defending claims concerning cancellation policies in U.S. District Court of New Jersey. Class certification is currently sub judice.
• Represented a worldwide footwear retailer in a consumer class action concerning gift cards, defending allegations of misleading disclosure of fees. We achieved a favorable settlement.
• Represented a luxury brand apparel company in defending class action, Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. The Court held that the amount in controversy met CAFA's jurisdictional requirement where plaintiff explicitly sought civil penalties in the statutory maximum amount of one thousand dollars, and defendant demonstrated that there were at least 5,001 putative class claims.
• Represented national retailers in class actions alleging breaches of privacy under statutory and common law.
• Obtained summary judgment for defendant in Thomasson v. GC Services LP. Our client, a call center and debt collection company, faced putative class action challenging ordinary course of business call monitoring practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California privacy statutes (pending before 9th Circuit).
• Representing the defendant in Pinero v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., in a putative consumer class action and several individual actions in federal and state court in Louisiana. Resulted in precedent-setting ruling dismissing all but one claim, which court viewed as unlikely to survive on the merits.
• Represented a national retailer in a putative consumer class action case in state and federal court in California, resulting in one of the most favorable settlements of its kind.
• Successfully defended against class action suit brought in Maryland state court involving allegations of overcharges in violation of state law; defeated motion to certify the class and, thereafter, key discovery motions leading to highly favorable settlement and dismissal of case.

• Representing one of the largest energy companies in the world in a putative class action in the Eastern District of New York. The putative class comprises residents of Brooklyn who have been impacted by a claimed 17 million gallon spill of oil at a former refinery. ExxonMobil is a co-defendant. The case is in the class action discovery phase.
• Successfully negotiated a favorable resolution of price-fixing charges against a leading manufacturer of specialty papers, its foreign parent, and certain executives in the first joint sovereign, international criminal antitrust investigation. In related civil class actions, obtained dismissal of foreign parent on jurisdictional grounds, and defeated class certification in two state indirect purchaser cases.
• Represented a major international manufacturer of audio tape in a successful bid to qualify under the Department of Justice's amnesty program, and in related class action litigation.

• Represented one of the largest laboratory testing companies in the U.S. in a just dismissed putative class action brought by a medical professionals who tested positive for consumption of alcohol. The case was brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In a January 2, 2008 Decision and Order, our client's motion to dismiss was granted. The case is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit.
• Successfully resolved antitrust class action claims against a major New York City hospital arising out of its alleged participation in a conspiracy to restrict the board certification of emergency medicine practitioners.
• Represent a large generic drug manufacturer in a class action that alleges violations of consumer protection statutes across the country in connection with drug sales and drug pricing (particularly as it concerns the Medicare program). Our client is one of several defendants. With the help of a mediator, we achieved a settlement of all claims against multiple defendants. The settlement was given preliminary approval recently and we hope for final approval shortly.

Back to: Litigation