Class Actions

Notable Experience

Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 91-cv-986 (S.D. Fla.)

• We won the largest compensatory jury damages verdict in class action history at the time – about $1.2 billion – and successfully defended the judgment entered on that verdict before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. United States District Judge Alan Gold pointed out that after our work in the case, class members “receive[d] their full compensatory damages and nearly all of their prejudgment interest.” Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 91-cv-986, at 4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2006). Columbia Law Professor John Coffee, the nation’s pre-eminent scholar on the role of lawyers in class actions, described our firm’s recovery in those amounts “in the face of unprecedented risk and resistance”. He concluded: “[t]he investment in effort thus already expended, now being expended, and to be expended in the future by class counsel is simply without equal.”

In Re Polyurethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio)

• Served as co-lead counsel in this indirect purchaser class action. After five years of litigation during which we successfully defended the district court’s order certifying the indirect purchaser class before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court, and on the eve of trial, we obtained a $151.25 million recovery, which was at the time the fourth largest indirect purchaser antitrust recovery in history.

Esformes, et al. v. Abel Holtz, et al.; Worton, et al. v. Abel Holtz, et al.; Fana Holtz, et al. v. Florida Department of Banking and Finance

• Represented plaintiff shareholders in this shareholders’ derivative lawsuit and direct action against controlling shareholder and his family alleging violations of RICO and federal and state change of bank control laws and breach of fiduciary duties as officers and directors of a financial institution. These civil actions led to an administrative action, which we successfully tried against the family, resulting in the family’s loss of control of the organization. The company was merged into Union Planters and the family group was required to pay all fees and costs.

Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., et al.

• Represented defendants in class action against BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors, alleging claims under §10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Successfully obtained judgment as a matter of law on all claims following trial. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants.

McDonald v. BankAtlantic

• Defended against class action on behalf of purchasers of automobiles and boats who financed purchases through financial institutions, alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, slander of title and violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), arising out of alleged wrongful “forced placed” insurance on the loans. We obtained a dismissal of the majority of plaintiffs’ claims such that plaintiffs’ counsel abandoned the remaining claims.

In Re Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation

• Obtained a $33 million recovery as lead counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers in antitrust litigation arising out of a nationwide price-fixing, bid-rigging and market allocation scheme among the country’s dominant manufacturers of liquid aluminum sulfate. The $33 million recovery represented an amount in excess of 100% of the treble damages being sought in the case. In commenting on the recovery, United States District Judge Madeleine Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey complimented the firm’s “high degree of diligence, perseverance and skillful advocacy,” and remarked in open court that the firm’s efforts “could not have yielded a better result” for the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

TCPA Class Action

• Represented Miami metropolitan business in defending a class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking class-wide damages of about $90 million. The district court denied class certification and the individual claims were then dismissed.

Potje v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., et al.

• Defended against a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging claims of fraud and deceptive practices over the prior four years in selling well over $1 billion in vacation ownership interests to purchasers nationwide. The district court dismissed three of the four claims with prejudice. After the close of fact discovery and the completion of briefing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for class certification, abandoning the argument that Bluegreen’s policies and procedures were fraudulent or deceptive, and took the position that doing so eliminated subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. After considering Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the case never should have been brought as a class action in the first place, the district court then dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After the individual plaintiffs sued in Florida Circuit Court, that Court entered summary judgment for Bluegreen.

Johansen v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., et al.

• Defended against a proposed class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and seeking damages of over $420 million. The district court denied class certification, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Laskey v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., et al.

• Represented defendants in a class action removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging the unauthorized practice of law, which sought damages of over $20 million. On every claim asserted, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Malin v. IVAX Corporation

• Defended against shareholder class action alleging violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of disappointing earnings announcement by publicly traded pharmaceutical company defendant. We obtained an order dismissing the action for failure to comply with the pleadings requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The decision was the first in this district and one of few in the country to reject the Second Circuit’s standard for pleading scienter under the PSLRA (i.e., the motive and opportunity test, which is the standard that has been embraced by the majority of federal courts) in favor of an even stricter standard requiring a shareholder plaintiff to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant made a material misrepresentation knowingly or recklessly. This victory was affirmed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit

Harris v. IVAX Corporation

• Defended against shareholder class action alleging violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and negligent misrepresentation arising out of erroneous earnings forecast issued by publicly traded pharmaceutical company. We obtained a dismissal of the action with prejudice and a ruling that plaintiffs’ claims were barred as a matter of law under the “safe harbor/forward looking statement” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The opinion has received national attention and commentary.