Our Experience and Results

Jurists have consistently recognized SBR's superior work product and results. In 2009, Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire commended SBR for the "excellent" result the firm achieved for its public pension fund clients in In re Tyco International Ltd. Securities Litigation and commented that the settlements obtained by the firm had set the "gold standard" for other litigants in related actions. By aggressively pursuing individual claims on behalf of its pension fund clients at the outset of the Tyco class action litigation, SBR achieved settlements totaling more than $80 million, an amount in excess of 50 times more than the firm's clients would have received had they remained members of the Tyco class.

Other members of the judiciary have commended the firm for its superior representation of its clients in securities class actions. For example, following the firm's successful representation of its clients in a market manipulation class action brought against a corporate defendant and a brokerage firm, Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York stated:

"I felt at every step of the case that you were extraordinarily competent, diligent, responsible, helpful to this court and appropriate in your conduct of this case, and I think the class was well served by your representation of them, very well served."[1]

Similarly, in approving the settlement in Cheney v. Cyberguard (S.D. Fla.), a securities class action against a corporate issuer and its executives, United States Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton of the Southern District of Florida commented:

"I think that the result was an outstanding result. ... [Q]uite frankly, I think that if you didn't have that caliber of counsel on the plaintiffs' side, there is no way that these shareholders would be looking at the recovery that they are and, in my experience, it is a substantial recovery."[2]

Notably, the recovery in the Cyberguard case amounted to approximately 90% of the damages claimed by class members, a result that far exceeds the norm in securities class actions.

SBR also secured an outstanding recovery for class members in In re Dreyfus Aggressive Growth Mutual Fund Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), where the $20.5 million settlement represented 98% of the damages claimed by class members. At the hearing approving that settlement, Judge Harold Baer of the Southern District of New York commended the high quality of SBR's work product and noted that "certainly, the class was ably represented and the ensuing settlement is commendable."[3]

In In re Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV Securities Litigation (D. Mass.), the firm served as co-lead counsel in cases brought against the former executives, auditors and bankers of a bankrupt Belgian software company. TheLernout & Hauspie cases produced settlements in excess of $180 million for class members, an extraordinary result given the bankruptcy of the corporate issuer and the minimal insurance maintained by the company's executives. The $115 million settlement with Lernout & Hauspie's auditors was the third-largest settlement with an accounting firm in a securities class action at the time the parties resolved that litigation. In addition, the $60 million settlement secured from the bank that served as Lernout & Hauspie's principal financier and alleged co-conspirator marked one of the largest recoveries ever secured for class members against a secondary actor in a securities class action. The $180 million in total settlements achieved for Lernout & Hauspie shareholders also constituted one of the largest recoveries ever for the investors in a bankrupt company.

The results secured by SBR for its clients in federal securities fraud and ERISA class actions also include the following: In re Baan Company Securities Litigation (D.D.C.) (settlement with bankrupt Dutch software company and its executives totaling $32 million, which amounted to nearly all of the damages claimed by class members); In re Winstar Comm. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) (settlements totaling over $30 million from bankrupt issuer, its executives and its alleged co-conspirator with case against outside auditors pending on appeal); In re TEAM Communications Securities Litigation (C.D. Cal.) (settlement with bankrupt American television licensing company predominantly traded on a German stock exchange and its executives totaling $12.5 million); In re Crayfish Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement with Japanese software company and its executives totaling $9 million);In re Intershop Communications AG Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal.) (settlement of more than $3 million with bankrupt German software company and its executives); In re Tower Automotive Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement of $5.35 million); In re Workstream, Inc., Securities Litigation (settled for $3.9 million); Cooper v. CPS Systems, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) (settled for $3.44 million); In re Mitcham Industries Securities Litigation (S.D. Tex.) (settled for $2.7 million); Baker v. Health Management Systems, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) (settled for $2.45 million); Stevens v. GlobeTel Communications Corp. (settled for $2.3 million); Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Okla.) (settled for $3.1 million); In re Recoton Securities Litigation (M.D. Fla.) (settled for over $3 million); Varljen v. H.J. Meyers & Co., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (settled for more than $5 million); In re Ferro Corp. ERISA Litigation (N.D. Ohio) (settled for $4 million); In re Comerica, Inc. ERISA Litigation (E.D. Mich.) (settled for $2.2 million).

As these representative matters demonstrate, SBR has frequently pursued claims on behalf of investors in foreign companies. By virtue of that experience, SBR has developed significant expertise in overcoming the unique challenges presented by litigation involving foreign entities. The firm has repeatedly utilized teams of translators and bi-lingual attorneys in an efficient manner in order to advance the interests of the firm's clients.

SBR has also served as lead counsel for classes in numerous class action litigations in which the plaintiffs asserted violations of various consumer protection statutes and related common law claims. The consumer class actions in which SBR has served as lead counsel include: Baird v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (a multi-jurisdiction case in which SBR secured over $100 million in cash and other benefits on behalf of persons who purchased allegedly defective RCA and GE television sets); Fundock v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and JVC Americas Corp. (Middlesex Cty. N.J.) (settlement for cash and enhanced warranty benefits on behalf of persons who purchased certain Panasonic and JVC DVD players); Argyropoulos v. HomEq Servicing Corp. (Super. Ct. L.A. Cty.) (settlement providing for certain class members who paid allegedly improper fees assessed in connection with their mortgage payments to collect 100% of their losses and for the remaining class members to receive 65% of the allegedly improper fees that they paid); Heller v. Circle K Stores, Inc. (Super. Ct. L.A. Cty.) (SBR secured preliminary and final injunctions preventing the defendant from imposing certain taxes upon the members of the plaintiff class).

Unlike many firms that specialize in pursuing class actions on behalf of investors and consumers, a significant percentage of SBR's practice involves the representation of plaintiffs and defendants in individual actions. Since 2002, SBR has acted as special counsel to New Jersey's public pension funds for securities fraud matters. In addition, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has retained SBR to serve as Receiver and Distribution Agent in matters involving insider trading and Ponzi schemes.

The firm also regularly represents corporate clients and individuals involved in high-stakes litigations and arbitrations. Representative matters include the following:

  • The defense of federal and state antitrust claims brought against contractors and a labor union in an action involving allegations that the defendants conspired to exclude competitors from the market for the installation of telecommunications equipment and wiring in New York City;
  • Asserting claims on behalf of telecommunications firm related to the failed design and implementation of a complex new billing software system;
  • Pursuing arbitration claims on behalf of corporate and individual investors who suffered multi-million dollar losses in connection with investments in auction rate securities, purchases of unsuitable securities by unscrupulous brokers and other alleged improprieties;
  • Representing venture capital firms, entrepreneurs and other former shareholders of companies that sold promising products to public corporations that allegedly failed to fulfill post-sale obligations to develop the sellers' products for commercial purposes;
  • Pursuing securities fraud and state law claims on behalf of hedge fund investors in relation to the funds' alleged misrepresentations concerning their investment criteria and strategies and the resulting losses suffered in connection with investments in various Ponzi schemes;
  • Representing a joint venture partner in connection with claims that its former partner, one of the world's largest finance companies, improperly accounted for the joint venture's profits and failed to make distributions owed to SBR's client;
  • Defending claims asserted by limited partners against SBR's clients, the mezzanine investors in a partnership's failed commercial real estate project;
  • Defending an AMEX-listed issuer in a AAA arbitration brought by its former investment banker for breach of contract; and
  • Representing a Swiss biotech firm in litigation against a former interlocking biotech company involving claims relating to alleged misrepresentation, breaches of contract and breaches of fiduciary duty.

SBR is committed to achieving favorable results on behalf of its clients in the most expedient and economical manner possible. Contact us online or by calling 212-239-4340 to schedule a no-cost consultation. We maintain conveniently located offices in New York City and New Jersey.

[1] Transcript of hearing in Varljen v. H.J. Meyers & Co., Inc., No. 97 Civ. 6742 (DLC) (October 27, 2000) at 30.

[2] Transcript of hearing in Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., Case No. 98-6879 CIV-Gold (April 16, 2004) at 47.

[3] Order, In re Dreyfus Aggressive Growth Mutual Fund Litigation, No. 98 Civ. 4318, June 22, 2001, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8418.