Source: https://www.classactionlawyers.com/cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:49:28+00:00

Document:
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe is a leading plaintiffs' class action and shareholder derivative law firm, focusing on consumer and financial fraud.
Operating for over thirty-five years, our firm serves as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in numerous actions in state and federal courts across the country. Our class action practice focuses on prosecuting cases involving consumer and securities fraud, privacy and data breaches, antitrust violations, and employment law. We also litigate shareholder derivative cases against corporate officers and directors for insider trading and breaches of fiduciary duty.
If you've been the victim of corporate fraud—or you are interested in starting or joining a class action or shareholder derivative action—please click the link below to contact us for a free legal consultation.
In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer Litigation, No. 17-cv-1834-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Lead Counsel for nationwide class of consumers who purchased allegedly defective cable modems in violation of numerous state laws.
Fisher v. United States, No. 13-cv-608-MMS (Fed. Cl.). Lead Counsel in derivative actions on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac alleging unconstitutional takings of private property against U.S. government.
Pozar et al. v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. CGC-15-547787 (Cal. Super. Ct.). Class Counsel for California class of consumers who purchased allegedly defective hard disk drives in violation of California consumer protection laws.
In re Fitbit, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2017-402-JRS (Del. Ch.). Co-Lead Counsel in shareholder derivative action alleging insider trading and breaches of fiduciary duty against Fitbit's officers and directors.
Nally v. Reichental, No. 16-cv-2995-MGL (D.S.C.). Co-Lead Counsel in derivative action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty against 3D Systems Corporation’s officers and directors.
In re MacBook Keyboard Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Member of the Executive Committee in nationwide class action on behalf of consumers who purchased MacBook laptops with faulty keyboards.
Tucker v. Scrushy, No. CV-02-5212 (Ala. Cir., Jefferson Cty.). Co-Lead Counsel in shareholder derivative action on behalf of HealthSouth Corporation alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and insider trading arising from a restatement of financial results. Plaintiffs won partial summary judgment against former CEO Richard Scrushy for restitution to HealthSouth of $47.8 million. Plaintiffs also settled HealthSouth’s claims against additional HealthSouth directors and officers for $100 million and against its investment banker for an additional $133 million. At trial against Mr. Scrushy on additional claims, Plaintiffs obtained a $2.9 billion judgment, which was later upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court.
In re Google AdWords Litigation, No. 08-cv-03369 (N.D. Cal.). Lead Counsel in nationwide class action on behalf of AdWords advertisers alleging that Google placed their ads on low-quality parked domains and error pages in violation of California law. We obtained a $22.5 million settlement on behalf of approximately 1.1 million class members. The court granted final approval of the settlement on August 7, 2017. For more information, please visit the settlement website at www.AdWordsClassAction.com.
Poertner v. The Gillette Company, No. 12-CV-803 (M.D. Fla.). Co-Lead Counsel in nationwide consumer class action alleging false and misleading advertising of certain Duracell batteries regarding the batteries’ longevity, in violation of various state laws. We obtained a settlement valued at approximately $50 million on behalf of approximately 7.26 million class members.
In re The Home Depot Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 15-CV-2999-TWT (N.D. Ga.). Co-Lead Counsel in shareholder derivative action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty against certain officers and directors concerning The Home Depot 2014 data breach. We successfully settled the litigation through comprehensive corporate governance reforms and structural improvements to its data security protocols.
In re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 753-VCS (Del. Ch.). As co-counsel, we 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 that it was paid commissions to steer insurance business to favored companies. When the practices were revealed, MMC paid huge fines, to the detriment of its shareholders.
3M Transparent Tape Cases, No. 00-2810-CW (N.D. Cal.). Co-Lead Counsel in nationwide antitrust class action on behalf of purchasers of 3M transparent tape. Plaintiffs claimed that 3M maintained an unlawful monopoly in the market for invisible and transparent tape designed to restrict the availability of lower-priced comparable products to consumers and maintain supracompetitive prices for its own retail products. We obtained a settlement valued at approximately $42 million.
Bonneville Pacific Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 92-C-181-S (D. Utah). Co-Lead Counsel in securities class action involving fraudulent financial statements by a power cogeneration company. We obtained settlements totaling $26 million for the class, which recovered 100% of its damages, in one of the largest securities fraud cases in Utah history. We also obtained an important decision from the Utah Supreme Court holding that plaintiffs need not plead or prove reliance under the Utah Uniform Securities Act.
Qwest Communications International, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 02-CV-8188 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver). Co-Lead Counsel in shareholder derivative action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and insider trading arising out of the telecommunications company’s earnings restatement. We obtained a $25 million settlement on the company’s behalf.
Pfeiffer v. Toll, No. 4140-VCL (Del. Ch.). Primary counsel in shareholder derivative action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and insider trading arising out of missed earnings projections. We recovered $16.25 million and obtained a key legal ruling rejecting the argument that Delaware’s leading insider trading precedent should be overruled. Pfeiffer v. Toll, 989 A.2d 683 (Del. Ch. 2010).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.