MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP, formerly RABIN, MURRAY & FRANK LLP and RABIN & PECKEL LLP, is among the leading firms specializing in securities fraud litigation. The Firm has an excellent record of success and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, both in class actions and in private securities suits, brought on behalf of defrauded investors. Among the major cases we have successfully handled on behalf of investors are:

• In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation (D. Md.) (recovery of $1.1 billion);
• In re Williams Securities Litigation (N.D. Okla.) (recently settled for $311 million);
• In re Merrill Lynch Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) (recently settled for $125 million);
• In re Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. Securities Litigation ($19.2 million recovery where the churn rate reported in the prospectus was incorrect);
• In re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation ($40 million recovery where reported financial results were alleged to be overstated);
• In re PictureTel Inc. Securities Litigation ($14 million recovery where reported financial results were alleged to be overstated because, among other things, inventory was overstated);
• In re Marion Merrell Dow Inc. Securities Litigation ($14 million recovery where the claims alleged that the defendants improperly claimed that they would make a prescription drug, Seldane, available over-the-counter which would vastly increase sales);
• LaVallie v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. ($10 million recovery where the claims alleged that the defendants misled investors into believing that they had sufficient insurance to pay asbestos claims);
• In re USX Securities Litigation ($9 million recovery where the prospectus misrepresented the status of a pending case pending before the International Trade Commission);
• Miller v. Bonmati ($9.9 million recovery where the claims alleged that the defendants engaged in self dealing through a materially false and misleading proxy statement);
• Feiner v. SS&C Tech. ($8.8 million recovery where claims alleged, among others, a misrepresentation in the role of the qualified independent underwriter.).