REPRESENTATIVE CLASS ACTION CASES
The attorneys at Bottini & Bottini Inc. have been Lead Counsel, Co-Lead Counsel, or played a significant role in the following matters:
• Cook v. McCullough et. al., Case. No. 11-cv-9119. Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is lead counsel for the plaintiff in this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Career Education Corp. against its officers and directors. By Order dated August 13, 2012, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss on demand futility grounds. See 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114621 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2012).
• Snellink v. Gulf Resources, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-03722-ODW (Central District of California). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this shareholder class action complaint brought under the federal securities laws. By Order dated May 15, 2012, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67839, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶96,828 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2012). The case is currently in the discovery phase and trial is set for July 30, 2012.
• In re Brocade Communications, Systems, Inc. Derivative Litig., Case No. 1:05cv41683 (Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara). Mr. Bottini was Co-Lead Counsel in one of the highest-profile cases in the country challenging the award of backdated stock options by executive officers of Brocade. The case was filed in May 2005 and, on August 8, 2008, Mr. Bottini was retained as co-counsel to Brocade by the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors of Brocade to help litigate the company’s claims against ten former officers and directors of the company. An amended complaint was filed in federal court in San Francisco, and the case, In re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Case No. 05-02233, proceeded before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. After litigation of the case for over five years, over $24 million was recovered for Brocade through the litigation.
• In re Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc. Mortgage Lending Practices Litig., Case No. CV405-1677, MDL Docket No. 1677 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia). Mr. Bottini was one of the lead counsels in this RESPA class action litigation. After three years of litigation, Chief Judge William T. Moore entered a Final Judgment on September 18, 2007 approving a nationwide class action settlement of Plaintiffs’ RESPA claims in which approximately $20 million in cash payments were made available to class members.
• In re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litig., Case No. 08-cv-6791 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). Mr. Bottini was a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in this class action under ERISA seeking recovery of losses to the Company’s ERISA plan participants. Notwithstanding the Company’s filing for bankruptcy court protection, this case settled for $5.75 million and the settlement was approved by the Hon. James B. Zagel by Order dated December 9, 2010.
• In re DRAM Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1486 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California). Mr. Bottini was one of the main partners at his firm at the time (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP) handling the case, where his firm was Co-Lead Counsel for the Class; $325,997,000 in settlements were obtained for the Class from nine defendants in one of the largest and most complex civil antitrust class actions in the country. Mr. Bottini was involved in all aspects of the case from the filing of the first complaint in 2002 to the final approval of the settlements which occurred in August 2007. Mr. Bottini was part of the trial team that was set to try the case against the two remaining defendants – Mosel Vitelic, Inc. and Nanya – when separate settlements with these last two defendants were reached on March 21, 2007, the day before oral argument was to be conducted on the motions in limine for trial. On August 15, 2007, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted final approval to the settlements, stating: "I think I can conclude on the basis with my five years with you all, watching this litigation progress and seeing it wind to a conclusion, that the results are exceptional. The percentages, as you have outlined them, do put this [case] in one of the upper categories of results of this kind of [antitrust] class action. I am aware of the complexity . . . I thought that you all did an exceptionally good job of bringing to me only those matters that really required the Court's attention. You did an exceptionally good job at organizing and managing the case, assisting me in management of the case. There was excellent coordination between all the various different plaintiffs' counsel with your group and the other groups that are part of this litigation. . . . So my conclusion is the case was well litigated by both sides, well managed as well by both sides."
• Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case No. 8:11-cv-00127-DOC-AJW (C.D. Cal.). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs in this consumer class action challenging the enrollment practices at one of the country’s largest for-profit online colleges. In later 2011 and early 2012, Judge Carter denied Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief under the UCL and then, after Defendants appealed that portion of the order to the Ninth Circuit, denied Defendant’s motion to stay the case pending Defendant’s appeal. See Ferguson v. Corinthian et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1358 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012).
• In re Sunpower Corp. Shareholder Deriv. Litig., Master File No. C-09-05731 (N.D. Cal.). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is Co-Lead Counsel in this shareholder derivative litigation pending in San Francisco, which involves alleged accounting fraud and the restatement of the financial statements of Sunpower Corporation.
• Smith v. Apollo Group, Inc., Case No. CV-11-0722-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz.). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff in this shareholder derivative action against certain officers and directors of the Apollo Group, Inc., the publicly-traded parent company of one of the largest for-profit colleges in the United States – University of Phoenix. By order dated January 11, 2012, Judge Tielborg denied defendants’ motion to stay the case pending completion of an internal investigation by a Special Committee of the Board of Directors and also denied a stay of the case until resolution of a related securities fraud class action case. See Smith v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3672 (D. Ariz. Jan. 11, 2012).
• In re Pacific Capital Bancorp Derivative Litig., Case No. CIVRS1340306 (Santa Barbara County Superior Court). Mr. Bottini was Lead Counsel in this shareholder derivative action which alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers and directors of Pacific Capital Bancorp. By Order dated October 8, 2010, the Court denied defendants’ demurrer and held that Lead Plaintiff had adequately alleged demand futility under California law. After two years of litigation, in which over a million pages of documents were produced and reviewed and certain legal issues were litigated in the court of appeal, a substantial settlement was reached in which significant corporate governance changes were made to the Company, including changes to provide greater Board independence and accountability, strict internal financial controls, significant and substantial revisions to PCBC’s credit policies (including the establishment of a new Credit Administration Group, the restriction of lending authority to specified senior loan officers, and enhanced new appraisal guidelines), new requirements obligating any individual desiring to serve on PCBC’s board to own a minimum amount of stock in the Company, annual review of the Company’s Code of Ethics, a new corporate governance training program for PCBC directors, new procedures to handle internal and external complaints from whistleblowers, annual review of all committee charters, and a vigorous insider trading policy. By Order dated January 19, 2012, the Court granted final approval to the Settlement and entered a final judgment.
• In re Herald, Primeo, and Thema Funds Sec. Litig., Case No. 09-cv-0289 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is Lead Counsel for the Thema Fund plaintiffs in this securities fraud class action case under the PSLRA. The action is brought on behalf of all persons who invested in three Madoff “feeder funds” controlled by Bank Medici – the Herald, Primeo, and Thema funds.
• In Karlin v. Alcatel, Case No. SA cv00-214 (DOC) (C.D. Cal.). Mr. Bottini represented investors who received a tender offer for their shares from Alcatel S.A., a French telecommunications company. Mr. Bottini served as Co Lead Counsel and the case settled for $10.5 million on the eve of trial. See Karlin v. Alcatel, 2001 WL 1301216, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 91,526 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment).
• Kaplan v. Fidelity National Home Warranty Co., Case No. 37-2008-00087962-CU-BT-CTL (Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is Lead Counsel for the Class in this consumer class action challenging defendant’s conduct with respect to home warranty plans sold to consumers. By Order dated November 1, 2010, the Court certified the case as a class action.
• In re Arena Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Case No. CV10-01069 (Washoe County, NV, June 2010). Mr. Bottini served as one of the counsel for Plaintiffs in this shareholder class action challenging the acquisition of Arena Resources by SandRidge Energy, Inc. As a result of the prosecution of the action, SandRidge raised the cash portion of the merger consideration by $2.00 per share, reduced the duration of the matching rights period, amended the terms of the non-solicitation clause in favor of Arena, reduced the amount of termination fees payable by a party from $50 million to $39 million, made additional material financial disclosures to Arena’s shareholders and extended the date of the shareholder meeting to vote on the merger.
• Bamboo Partners LLC v. The Robert Mondavi Corp., et al., Case No. 26-27170 (Superior Court for the State of California, County of Napa). Mr. Bottini represented the plaintiff common shareholders of the Mondavi Corporation in connection with the acquisition of the company by Constellation Brands, Inc. Mondavi had a dual-class stock structure pursuant to which the common shareholders owned Class A shares and the Mondavi family members owned Class B shares. Plaintiffs alleged that the insider Class B Mondavi family members improperly received more consideration for their shares than the common Class A public shareholders. The case was settled when defendants agreed to pay an additional $10.8 million to the Class A shareholder plaintiffs.
• In re Dole Shareholder Litig., Case No. B281969 (Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles). In this mergers & acquisitions, going-private class action case, Mr. Bottini was Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs and was involved in all aspects of the litigation. A $172 million settlement was obtained for the Class when the tender offer price was increased by $4 per share.
• In re Mentor Corp. Shareholder Litig., Case No. 1304537 (Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Barbara). Mr. Bottini’s prior firm, Johnson Bottini, LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel (along with Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP) in this shareholder class action case which challenges the fairness of the tender offer submitted by Johnson & Johnson for all the public shares of Mentor Corp.
• In re Sepracor, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 4871-VCS (Delaware Chancery Court). Mr. Bottini’s prior firm, Johnson Bottini, LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in this shareholder class action challenging a $2.6 billion tender offer for all the outstanding shares of Sepracor, Inc. by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. of Japan. After moving for a preliminary injunction and obtaining expedited discovery, the case was settled by defendants agreeing to disclose substantial additional disclosures to Sepracor’s shareholders regarding the financial analyses performed by Sepracor’s investment bankers. The additional disclosures were filed via an Amendment No. 2 to the Schedule 14D-9 filed on October 2, 2009.
• In re Heritage Bond Litig., Case No. 02-MDL-1475-DT (United States District Court for the Central District of California). In this class action bondholder litigation, which was ordered consolidated in Los Angeles by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Mr. Bottini was lead counsel for the outside director defendants. After obtaining dismissal of most of the claims against the outside directors, Mr. Bottini obtained dismissal of the remaining claims against the outside directors for a combined payment of $102,500. The other defendants not represented by Mr. Bottini paid $27 million to settle the case. See In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13627 (C.D. Cal.).
• Intel x86 Microprocessor Cases, JCCP Case No. 4443 (Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara). In this complex class action antitrust case, the California Judicial Council coordinated the cases in Santa Clara before Judge Komar. Mr. Bottini is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and is active in all aspects of the case. By order dated May 15, 2007, Judge Komar issued an order denying defendants’ demurrer to the complaint in its entirety. The case is ongoing.
• In re Dell, Inc. Derivative Litig., Case No. 1:06-cv-00839 (United States District Court for the Western District of Texas). By order dated March 1, 2007, the Honorable Sam Sparks appointed Mr. Bottini’s prior firm, Johnson Bottini, LLP Co-Lead Counsel in this shareholder derivative action.
• In re Sunterra Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A525433 (Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Clark). Mr. Bottini was Co-Lead Counsel in this shareholder action which challenged the fairness and disclosures made in SEC filings pertaining to a buyout offer for the company and certain actions by present and former officers and directors of Sunterra. The case was settled in 2007 when Sunterra agreed to file a supplemental filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission providing additional material information pertaining to the tender offer.
• Deane v. Tombros et al.(NPS Pharmaceuticals Securities Litig.), Case No. 60913838 (Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake City, Utah). Mr. Bottini was Lead Counsel in this shareholder derivative action filed against current and former officers and directors of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This matter was settled on terms that require the implementation of significant corporate therapeutic changes.
• In re ING Groep N.V. ERISA Litig., Master File No. 09-cv-400-JEC (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) (ERISA class action). Bottini & Bottini, Inc. is Lead Counsel in this action on behalf of participants in the ING 401k Plan. The suit seeks recovery of damages to the Plan and Plan Participants due to breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants.
• In re American Express ERISA Litig., Case No. 08-cv-10834 (JGK) (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) (ERISA class action). Mr. Bottini represents the plaintiffs, who seek damages to the Plan and Plan Participants due to breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants.
• In re PFF Bancorp,Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 5:2008cvl093 (United States District Court for the Central District of California) (ERISA class action; case settled for $3 million, plus the allowance of a $400,000 bankruptcy claim, after company declared bankruptcy; settlement approved by court on May 2, 2011).
• In re Heelys Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-1682 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas). Mr. Bottini’s prior firm, Johnson Bottini, LLP was Co-Lead Counsel in this shareholder derivative action filed against current and former officers and directors of Heelys Inc. After more than a year of litigation and multiple mediations, this matter was recently settled in 2010, subject to court approval, on terms that require the implementation of significant corporate therapeutic changes.