Source: https://gilmanlawllp.com/securities-fraud-lawsuit-litigation-lawyer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:15:28+00:00

Document:
For over 40 years, Gilman Law LLP has successfully enforced the rights of investors who have been the victims of securities fraud. Our securities lawyers focus on prosecuting cases relating to securities fraud, stock manipulation and shareholder’s rights. The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that securities fraud and violations of stockholder’s rights cost investors an estimated $40 Billion a year.
Our firm has prosecuted many securities fraud class action and shareholder’s rights class action cases, which included a wide range of class, derivative and business transaction cases under federal securities and state corporate law. Gilman Law has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for institutional investors and individual investors who have been defrauded or manipulated due to securities fraud violations relating to initial public offerings and open market fraud. Furthermore, Gilman Law has substantial experience in a variety of areas of securities fraud involving stockbrokers underwriters and broker dealers. These violations include, but are not limited to: public securities offerings, stockbroker churning, unauthorized trading, stockbroker fraud, non-disclosure and misrepresentation of material facts, stockbroker negligence, margin practices, hedge fund practices and breach of fiduciary duty.
The firm is actively involved in litigation on behalf of defrauded individual and institutional investors in both class action and shareholder derivative litigation.
Gilman Law LLP is a leading securities law firm and is here to help you recover your losses. If you believe you have suffered losses as a result of a securities fraud, you may have valuable legal rights. For a free evaluation of your case, please fill out our online form, or CALL TOLL FREE (1-888-252-0048) today.
In Brumbaugh v. Wave Systems Corporation, No. 04-40022-MAP (D. Mass.), the firm represented the court-appointed lead plaintiffs. This securities case arose out of the company’s misrepresentations and omissions concerning two purported license agreements with major corporations for the company’s digital security products and was settled successfully on behalf of the certified class.
The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Blech Securities Litigation, 94-CIV-7696-RWS (S.D. N.Y.) asserting unique market manipulation claims against the brokerage firm of D. Blech & Co., its principals, its clearing broker, and several other alleged participants in connection with an alleged scheme to inflate the prices of various biotechnology securities. In a vigorously litigated case, the firm and its co-counsel obtained certification of a class of purchasers of 22 separate securities, successfully opposed various motions to dismiss, and, subsequently, motions for summary judgment, and after extensive discovery and trial preparation, negotiated over $15 million in cash settlements on behalf of the class. This case resulted in several reported opinions, including one that has been frequently cited and referred to by commentators on the issue of clearing broker liability. In re Blech Securities Litigation, 961 F. Supp. 569 (S.D. N.Y. 1997).
Gilman Law LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in Hynes v. The Enstar Group, Inc., et al. 90-C-1204-N (M.D. Alabama). In the face of substantial risks of an unsuccessful outcome due to the bankruptcy (and consequent immunity from suit) of Enstar and the bankruptcy of Enstar’s chairman who was the chief architect of the fraud, Gilman Law LLP aggressively litigated the case on behalf of the Class and obtained settlements totaling in excess of $19 million from several defendants, including a major accounting firm, a major law firm, and former outside directors after the conclusion of extensive discovery and immediately prior to the scheduled trial. Subsequently, Gilman Law LLP won an additional $4.1 million for the class in collateral litigation against Michael Milken and related entities.
The firm was Co-Lead Counsel in Cooper v. Kana, et al. Civil Action No. 3:98-CV-2804-M (N.D. Texas) on behalf of purchasers of CPS Systems, Inc. (“CPS”) stock in connection with its $8.74 million initial public offering (“IPO”) and trading on the American Stock Exchange thereafter, against CPS, its officers and directors, the underwriters for its IPO, and CPS’s independent auditors, alleging misstatements in the IPO Prospectus and subsequent press releases and SEC filings concerning CPS’s revenue recognition methods and reported revenues and earnings. After CPS restated its earnings and filed bankruptcy, the firm and its co-counsel obtained class certification, defeated various motions to dismiss, conducted discovery, engaged in two separate mediations, and ultimately recovered $3.44 million in cash settlements on behalf of the class against the remaining defendants.
The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in Lynn v. Infinity Investors Limited, et al. 3:97-CV-226 (E.D. Tenn.), a case asserting claims for open market securities fraud and for breach of contract arising out of an alleged complex scheme to evade the requirements of Regulation S of the Securities Act of 1940 and to manipulate the market prices of United Petroleum Corporation (“UPET”) stock. The firm obtained class certification, successfully objected to UPET’s bankruptcy plan in another jurisdiction that would have otherwise dismissed the action with prejudice, and overcame other significant obstacles in a vigorously litigated case to ultimately obtain a $4 million cash settlement, recovering a very substantial portion of actual losses claimed by class members.
Gilman Law LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Hallwood Energy Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, 90-Civ-1555-JFK (S.D.N.Y.) in which a $9.1 million settlement was obtained after five years of intensive litigation. This class action arose out of a complex merger and exchange offer transaction involving several publicly traded oil and gas limited partnership entities. The litigation challenged the fairness of the exchange and involved highly complex oil and gas valuations and methodologies. Gilman Law LLP effectively managed the litigation and diligently prosecuted the case on behalf of a Class of approximately forty thousand unitholders.
Gilman Law LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in Caven v. Miller, et al. No. H-96-CV-3464 (EW) (S.D. Tex.), a shareholder derivative action arising out of the merger of a publicly held hospital company with and into a firm in the same industry that had been privately held. After the merger, the successor firm downwardly restated its financial results due to its own previously undisclosed accounting irregularities and losses. After defeating motions to dismiss on various grounds, conducting discovery, and engaging in mediations, Plaintiffs recovered over $18 million in benefits on behalf of the successor company from various insiders of both companies involved.
The firm was one of four firms actively involved in Alert Income Partners Securities Litigation, No. 92-2-9150 (D. Colo.) a complex securities class action brought against promoters of a series of limited partnerships, their auditors and other parties. After extensive discovery, a settlement was reached valued at $60 million.
The firm served as one of three co-lead counsel representing a class of limited partners in In re Oxford Tax Exempt Fund Securities Litigation, No. 95-3643 (D. Md.), a case asserting federal securities and related common law claims arising out of a complex partnership restructuring transaction, and obtained a settlement valued in excess of $11 million.
Gilman Law LLP served as lead counsel in Sullivan, et al. v. Shearson California Radisson Plaza Partners, Limited Partnership, et al., No. 89-5472-JMI (C.D. Cal.), a case arising out of a publicly offered limited partnership wherein claims under the 1934 Exchange Act and the 1940 Securities Act were asserted on behalf of the investors. The case involved complex issues of hotel appraisal and valuation, and resulted in a settlement valued in excess of $11 million on behalf of the class.
In Hartley v. Stamford Towers Limited Partnership, et al., No. C-90-2146-JPV (N.D. Cal.), another action arising out of a public limited partnership offering, the firm served as co-lead counsel for the investor class and obtained a settlement of $6.5 million. In that litigation the plaintiffs engaged in extensive discovery and negotiations and consultation with real estate valuation experts, in the face of several challenging obstacles.
The firm served as co-lead counsel representing a class of more than 4,000 investors in a series of oil and gas drilling programs in the Woodlands Energy and Development Corporation/ Intercomex Financial Corp. Litigation (encompassing several related civil actions in various federal and state courts in Texas and California). That litigation involved complicated securities issues, as well as certain novel insurance liability questions, and was also contested vigorously by the defendants with respect to every aspect of the case. In that case, plaintiffs’ counsel overcame several rounds of briefing on motions to dismiss the pleadings and a vigorous opposition to class certification. Counsel then engaged in a long series of merits discovery, and eventually took part in intense negotiations that led to several partial settlements. Ultimately, Gilman Law LLP, together with their co-counsel, recovered in excess of $11 million for investors.
Gilman Law LLP as lead class counsel, achieved a successful settlement in the case of Hutson, et al. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, et al., No. 89 Civ. 8358 (L.M.M.) (S.D.N.Y.). That case, which arose out of the offering of limited partnership interests, involved mortgage revenue bonds issued by many state and local government agencies which were secured by participating non-recourse mortgage loans on fourteen apartment projects and retirement communities. As lead counsel, Gilman Law LLP was responsible for and managed all aspects of the complex litigation which also involved the subject areas of real estate financing and valuation, secured lending and foreclosure. In addition, because the case involved a 1985 offering, there were serious statute of limitations questions facing plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel. Despite these momentous problems, the firm obtained a settlement valued at $14 million for the class. Judge McKenna, in approving the settlement, praised plaintiffs’ counsel for their efficient work.
Gilman Law LLP was one of five firms actively involved in the In re Granada Partnership Securities Litigation, MDL No. 837 (S.D. Tex.), in which a partial settlement in excess of $14 million was reached with certain of the defendants. This was an extremely contentious lawsuit in which every procedural step was a pitched battle. After protracted litigation with extensive motion practice, the partial settlement was reached, which accounted for virtually all of the available financial resources of the settling defendants.
Other examples of the firm’s litigation ability are the dual settlements achieved in the related cases styled In re Permian Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 11373 (Del. Ch. Ct.) and Rodgers v. National Intergroup, Inc., et al. No. 90-11653-Z (D. Mass.). Gilman Law LLP was designated as lead counsel and directed and participated in every aspect of the cases. The first settlement, valued at $6.1 million, plus non-monetary benefits, arose out of an action in the Delaware Chancery Court challenging a merger of limited partnership interests. Gilman Law LLP conducted extensive discovery in that litigation, most of which was done on an expedited basis, and consulted with experts, including authorities on oil and gas. The litigation involved many complex issues, including issues relating to the valuation of interstate and intrastate pipeline assets. The settlement was reached after the conclusion of expedited discovery and prior to a hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction. The second settlement successfully concluded litigation in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts arising out of the 1987 public offering of the partnership interests which later became the subject of the merger proposal.
Gilman Law LLP has also played a major role in significant litigation challenging limited partnership roll-ups, restructurings, exchanges and mergers, including the Hallwood Energy, Oxford and Permian cases described above, Adam et al. v. Berkshire Realty Corporation, No. 90-12864 WF (D. Mass), where the firm served as co-lead counsel and achieved a settlement consisting of cash and warrants valued at $7.5 million, In re Equitec Rollup Litigation, Master File No. C-90-2064 (N.D. Cal); Laurence v. Brewer, No. 97-15464 (Del. Ch. Ct.), where the firm served as co-lead counsel (challenging a tender offer by general partners for publicly traded master limited partnership, and obtaining settlement with establishment of dividend payments to limited partners); LLOV Partners v. INCO Limited, No. 00-4999 (NHP) (D.N.J.) (challenging tender offer by parent company for tracking stock of subsidiary); and Rosenblum v. Equis Financial Group, No. 98-8040 (S.D. Fla.) (class and derivative settlements on behalf of three sub classes).
Gilman Law LLP has also been actively involved in numerous other class actions arising under the federal securities laws, including In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnership Litigation, No. 94-CV-8547 (S.D.N.Y.); In re The One Bancorp Securities Litigation, No. 89-0315-P (D. Me.); In re VMS Securities Litigation, No. 89C 9448 (N.D. Ill.); In re Shearson Union Square Associates Securities Litigation, (Del. Ch. Ct.); In re Software Publishing Securities Litigation, C-93-20246 (N.D. Cal.); In re Prudential-Bache Energy Income Partnerships Litigation, MDL No. 888 (E.D. LA); In Re: T2 Medical Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 92-CIV-1564 (N.D. Ga.); In re Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation; 97-12254 (D. Mass.); In re UDC Homes Securities Litigation, 95-08941 (Maricopa County, AZ Superior Ct.); and In re Towers Financial Securities Litigation, 93-0810 (S.D.N.Y.).
Gilman Law LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in Caven v. Miller, et al. (EW) (S.D. Tex.), a shareholder derivative action arising out of the merger of a publicly held hospital company with and into a firm in the same industry that had been privately held. After the merger, the successor firm downwardly restated its financial results due to its own previously undisclosed accounting irregularities and losses. After defeating motions to dismiss on various grounds, conducting discovery, and engaging in mediations, Plaintiffs recovered over $18 million in benefits on behalf of the successor company from various insiders of both companies involved.
Attorney Kenneth Gilman has been appointed as co-lead counsel to represent the proposed class in the consolidated class action proceeding concerning certain exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) issued by Direxion entitled In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-08011-RJH (S.D.N.Y.). This case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In In re ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civil No. 1:09-cv-06935-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the firm along with its co-counsel represents a class of thousands of purchasers of Defendants’ ProShares Ultra, ProShares Ultra Short or ProShares “short” or single-inverse exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”). This case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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