RECOVERIES

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS

In re IMAX Securities Litigation
Case No. 06 Civ. 6128 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.)
In this securities fraud class action, the motions to dismiss the complaint made by defendants IMAX Corp., the Individual IMAX Defendants and PriceWaterhouse Coopers("PWC") were denied by Judge Buchwald of the Southern District of New York. In her September 16, 2008 opinion, Judge Buchwald sustained the class' claim that IMAX violated its own accounting policies regarding revenue recognition for its theater system revenue (which led to the restatement of IMAX's financial statements for several years) and that its accountant, PWC, was reckless in not detecting the violations of those accounting policies.

In re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation (Sallie Mae)
Case No. 08 Civ. 1029 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)
On July 23, 2008, the Court consolidated all related securities actions filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased SLM Corporation during the period from January 18, 2007 through January 3, 2008; appointed Westchester Capital Management as Lead Plaintiff and approved Westchester Capital’s selection of Abbey Spanier to serve as Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

In re St. Jude Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 06-CV-1379 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn.)
On November 7, 2007, Judge James M. Rosenbaum issued an order certifying a class of investors who purchased common stock of St. Jude Medical, Inc. during the period from January 25, 2006 through April 4, 2006 and appointed Abbey Spanier to serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities & Derivative Litigation
Case No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) (S.D.N.Y.)
This ongoing action arises out of one of the most egregious financial frauds ever uncovered at a public company. From 1998 through 2002, Adelphia Communications Corporation — the nation’s sixth largest cable company — systematically and fraudulently failed to report billions in loans. At present, plaintiffs have entered into partial settlements in the aggregate amount of $455 million with the Company’s independent auditors, Deloitte & Touche, LLP, investment banking firms which underwrote offerings of Adelphia securities, and lending banks. Judge Lawrence M. McKenna observed: “If the Lead Plaintiff(s) had been represented by less tenacious and competent counsel, it is by no means clear that [they] would have achieved the success [they] did here on behalf of the Class.”

Braun and Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Case Nos. 3127 and 3757 (Pa. Ct. C.P., Philadelphia Co.)
Plaintiffs in this class action on behalf of 186,000 current and former hourly employees obtained a $78 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart and an express finding that Wal-Mart did not act in good faith in failing to pay class members for missed rest breaks and off the clock work.

On October 3, 2007, Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein ordered Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to pay an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages to 124,506 current and former Pennsylvania employees of the company from 2002 through May 2006 who were not paid when they worked during rest breaks. In his 12-page opinion, Judge Bernstein stressed the importance of compensating workers for their time. "The law in its majesty applies equally to highly paid executives and minimum-wage clerks," he wrote. "Just as highly paid executives' promised equity interests . . . are protected fringe benefits and wage supplements . . ., so too [are] the monetary equivalents of 'paid break' time cashiers and other employees were prohibited from taking."

Opinion of J. Bernstein on Braun v. Wal-Mart 10-3-07

Iliadis, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Case No. MID-L-5498-02 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Middlesex Co.)
Abbey Spanier successfully appealed the denial of class action certification by the trial court in the New Jersey Supreme Court. On May 31, 2007, in its first full treatment of the state’s class action rule since 1983, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court and directed an entry of an order certifying the class.

In re Tele-Communications, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
Case No. 16370 (Del. Ch.)
This litigation arose out of the 1998 merger of Tele-Communications, Inc. (“TCI”) and AT&T Corp. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the holders of TCI shares by insisting that a 10% premium be paid to the holders of super voting TCI shares, held primarily by TCI insiders. The premium was alleged to be the product of unfair dealing and was negotiated without any meaningful protections for class members. After overcoming defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the case was settled days before trial was to begin in the Chancery Court. Chancellor Chandler, commenting on the $52 million settlement in February 2007, stated: “Attorneys on both sides were excellent and performed at the highest levels of professionalism, representing their clients in this matter, and I compliment you all for that.”

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation
Case No. 2 MDL 1484 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y.)
This case, brought on behalf of Merrill Lynch mutual fund investors, was resolved while on appeal from its dismissal by the district court, and following the Second Circuit’s dismissal of a related case. Judge John Keenan, commenting on the $39 million settlement in January 2007, stated: “[I]t is beyond dispute that plaintiffs’ counsel conducted this litigation with great skill and tenacity. The high quality of representation provided by lead counsel is evident from … the record of this case … Abbey Spanier [has] tremendous experience in the field of complex securities class litigation.”

In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation
Case No. 01-CV-7351 (JES) (S.D.N.Y.)
This securities class action raised several complex issues with respect to the efficiency of the market for foreign securities and the enforceability of a judgment against a foreign entity. Observing that lead counsel litigated the case “efficiently,” the District Court approved the $46 million settlement of this action in July 2006.

Semerenko v. Cendant Corp.
Case No. 98-4734 (WHW) (D.N.J.)
Just prior to disclosing it was restating its financial statements, Cendant was the victor in a 1998 takeover battle for American Bankers Insurance Co. (“ABI”). Abbey Spanier represented ABI shareholders in this securities class action who alleged that ABI’s stock price was artificially inflated by Cendant’s false financial statements. In a precedent setting decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the action and expanded the right to sue beyond direct purchasers from the issuer. The $26 million settlement of this action was approved by the District Court in July 2006.

Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., et al
Case No. 18414-NC (Del. Ch.)
This class action, brought on behalf of DLJ shareholders alleging the board’s breach of fiduciary duty, was initially dismissed on standing grounds without any resolution as to the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ pleaded claims. On their second appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, plaintiffs obtained a reversal of the dismissal of their pleading. The landmark decision by the Supreme Court represented a departure from earlier Delaware authority on the longstanding distinction between direct and derivative actions. The Tooley Court expressly disapproved both the concept of special injury and the concept that a claim is necessarily derivative if it affects all stockholders equally. As a result of Tooley, the analysis now turns solely on who suffered the alleged harm and who would benefit from any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the suing stockholders).

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities Litigation
Civil Action No. 02-cv-5571 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)
In this action, in which Abbey Spanier serves as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, plaintiffs obtained a ground-breaking decision in March 2007 on class certification, in which United States District Judge Richard J. Holwell certified a class including not only U.S. investors, but also investors residing in France, England and the Netherlands who purchased Vivendi securities on foreign exchanges, as well as on the New York Stock Exchange. The Second Circuit declined defendants’ request for interlocutory review under Rule 23.