Source: http://www.faruqilaw.com/cases/prior-case-results/read
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:23:54+00:00

Document:
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP concentrates in corporate, consumer, antitrust and securities litigation. Virtually all of the litigation commenced by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is handled on a contingency fee basis. The firm maintains its offices in New York City.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has been appointed sole lead or co-lead counsel in numerous class and derivative actions. Further, in Brickell Partners v. Emerging Commns., Inc., Civil No. 16415 (Del. Ch. 1998) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, in its monitoring role as Class counsel, achieved a post-trial settlement on behalf of the Class of $5,596,037.40. The case was litigated for over four years with a verdict being returned in favor of plaintiff and the Class in June, 2004. The Brickell Partners case established new law and new standards for determining the fiduciary duties of corporate directors especially directors that have specialized backgrounds (such as, accountants, lawyers, financial experts, etc.).
In re Foamex International Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 1659-NC (Del. Ch. 1995).
Jennifer Convertibles Derivative Action, C.A. No. 95-Civ 1407 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Zeid, et al. v. Open Environment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 96 CV 12466-EFH (D. Mass. 1996) ($9 million recovered on behalf of class).
In re Avatex Corporation Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 16334-NC (Del. Ch. 1999) (Action on behalf of preferred shareholders which established certain new standards for preferred shareholders rights. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP was sole lead counsel).
In re BA Merchant Services, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 16734NC (Del. Ch. 1998).
In re Brylane Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 16819 NC (Del. Ch. 1998).
In re Think New Ideas, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98 Civ. 6809 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
In re Mitcham Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. H-98-1244 (S.D. Tex. 1998) ($3 million recovery on behalf of class members despite the fact that corporate defendant was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy).
Ruskin v. TIG Holdings, Inc., No. 98 Civ 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ($3 million recovery on behalf of class members).
In re Howmet International Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil action No. 17575-NC (Del. Ch. 1999) (Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP was successful in obtaining an increased benefit to class members of $61.5 million).
In re Sodexho Marriott Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 18640 (Del. Ch. 1999). (Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP was successful in obtaining an increased benefit to class members of $165 million dollars).
In re Azurix Corporation, Consolidated C.A. No. 18463 (Del. Ch. 1999). (Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP was successful in obtaining an increased benefit to class members of $54 million dollars).
In re Travelers Property Casualty Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 17902-NC (Del. Ch. 2000).
In re Hartford Life, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 17951-NC (Del. Ch. 2000). (Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP was successful in obtaining an increased benefit to class members of $169 million dollars).
In re Boise Cascade Office Products Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 17615-NC (Del. Ch. 2001).
In re Pennaco Energy, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 18606 NC (Del. Ch. 2001).
In re Prodigy Communications Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 18606 NC (Del. Ch. 2001).
In re Intimate Brands, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 19382-NC (Del. Ch. 2002) (member of Executive Committee which obtained a substantial benefit for the class).
Delre v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Docket No. Ber-L-3232-02, (Superior Court of New Jersey 2002) (Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as sole lead counsel, successfully recovered on behalf of a class of consumers 100% of the loss incurred by class members).
In re Vans, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. BC309805 (Superior Court of California 2004) (Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as co-lead counsel, was responsible for a reduction in deal breakup fee, and for inclusion of materially meaningful disclosures in proxy materials).
In re Enron Derivative Litigation, No. 0110-10742 (Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah 2001).
Altman v. IQ Software Corporation et al., C.A. No. 1:97-CV-3203-ODE (N.D. Georgia 1997).
Clarent Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 19141-NC (Del. Ch. 2001).
In re TD Waterhouse Group Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 19166 NC (Del. Ch. 2001).
In re Kroger Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-1-01-265 (S.D. Ohio Western Division 2001).
In re PurchasePro, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-S-01-0483-JLQ (District of Nevada 2001).
Simon et al. v. Becherer, et al (“JP Morgan Derivative Litigation”), Index No. 2002-600480 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2002).
Lehmbeck v. Merck & Co. et al., D. N.J. 02-4367 (MLC).
In re Imclone Systems Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 19528 (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re Syncor International Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 20026 (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re AMC Entertainment Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 19880-NC (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol., C.A. No. 19827-NC (Del. Ch. 2002).
Galluscio v. The Walt Disney Company, C.A. No. 20064 (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re NRG Energy, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 19411 NC (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re McAfee.com Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 19481 NC (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re Travelocity.com Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 19419 NC (Del. Ch. 2002).
In re Coorstek, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 20014-NC (Del. Ch. 2002).
White v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 02 CV 8965 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

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