SIGNIFICANT RECOVERIES

MURRAY FRANK LLP represents investors and consumers in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Based in New York, MURRAY FRANK LLP prosecutes securities fraud, antitrust, and complex commercial litigation. MURRAY FRANK LLP has been appointed Lead or Co-Lead Counsel by judges throughout the United States and has recovered well in excess of $1 billion for investors harmed by corporate fraud and malfeasance, including:

In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation, USDC Massachusetts, Case No. 03-md-1539, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was Class Counsel and achieved a settlement of $1.1 billion for defrauded investors.

In re Williams Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of Oklahoma, Case No. 02-CV-72, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was a member of plaintiffs executive committee and achieved a settlement of $311 million for defrauded investors.

In re General Motors Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 05-CV-8088, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was originally appointed sole Lead Counsel, was Class Counsel and helped achieve a settlement of $303 million for defrauded investors.

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 02-md-1484, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and recovered $125 million for investors defrauded by misrepresentations in published analyst reports.

In re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 92-cv-5815, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a $36 million settlement for defrauded investors.

In re Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 00-cv-8913, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed sole Lead Counsel and recovered $19.2 million for defrauded investors.

In re PictureTel Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Massachusetts, Case No. 97-cv-12135, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a $14 million settlement for defrauded investors.

In re Marion Merrell Dow Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Western District of Missouri, Case No. 92-0609-CV-W 6, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and recovered $14 million for defrauded investors.

LaVallie v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., USDC Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 91-cv-7648, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed sole Lead Counsel and achieved a $10 million settlement for defrauded investors.

In re USX Securities Litigation, USDC Western Pennsylvania, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and secured a $9 million settlement for defrauded investors.

Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc., USDC Connecticut, Case No. 97-cv-656, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and recovered $8.8 million for defrauded investors.

Lowry v. Andrx Corp., USDC Southern District of Florida, Case No. 05-cv-61640, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed sole Lead Counsel and recovered $8 million settlement for defrauded investors.

In re Xybernaut Corp. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 05-mdl-1705, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a $6.3 million settlement for defrauded investors.

Brody v. Zix Corp., USDC Northern Texas, Case No. 04-cv-1931, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a $5.6 million settlement for defrauded investors.

In re ContiFinancial Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 99-cv-11436, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and recovered $5.5 million for defrauded investors.

In re EIS International Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Connecticut, Case No. 97-cv-813, a securities class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a $3.8 million settlement for defrauded investors.

In re Quintiles Transnational Securities Litigation, USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Case No. 99-cv-854, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed Co-Lead Counsel and recovered $3 million for defrauded investors.

In re Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc., USDC Southern District of New York, 07-cv-7829, a securities fraud class action, in which MURRAY FRANK LLP was appointed sole Lead Counsel and recovered $2.4 million for defrauded investors.

PRECEDENT SETTING DECISIONS

MURRAY FRANK LLP has been responsible for obtaining favorable opinions which have broken new ground in the class action or securities fields or which have promoted shareholder rights in prosecuting these actions, including:

In West Virginia Investment Management Board v. Residential Accredited Loans, Inc., C.A. No. 10-C-412, slip op. (Circuit Ct. Kanawha Cty., W. Va., Feb. 2, 2011), MURRAY FRANK LLP successfully argued in a case of first impression (1) that the securities' triple-A ratings are actionable because the underwriter and issuer defendants had reason to know that the ratings were misleading; and (2) that the plaintiff, whose securities were purchased on its behalf by its investment advisor, had standing to bring a claim for violations of the West Virginia Uniform Securities Act.

In Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan. 28, 1997), on a case of first impression, the Superior Court of Massachusetts applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts.

In Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001), MURRAY FRANK LLP successfully argued on a case of first impression in the District of Rhode Island for the pleading standard for claims against an auditor under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

In Feiner v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 1998), MURRAY FRANK LLP prevailed on an issue of first impression concerning the liability of a qualified independent underwriter for an initial public offering.

In Adair v. Bristol Technology Systems, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), MURRAY FRANK LLP prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Southern District of New York, successfully arguing that standing under the Securities Act of 1933 was not limited to buyers who purchased directly on an initial public offering. The opinion was subsequently cited in decisions and secondary sources over 70 times.

JUDICIAL COMMENDATIONS

Courts throughout the United States have commended the quality of MURRAY FRANK LLP's work, including:

Kosseff v. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., C.A. No. 188-MG (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2008), in which the Court stated I note that plaintiffs attorneys [MURRAY FRANK LLP] are capable of sophisticated corporate litigation and have a good reputation within the bar.

Park v. The Thompson Corp., 2008 WL 4684232 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2008), in which the court stated class counsel [MURRAY FRANK LLP] have provided extremely high-quality representation.

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, 246 F.R.D 156, 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), in which the Court commended MURRAY FRANK LLP's skillful and zealous representation over a six-year period, and finding the high quality of representation provided by Lead Counsel is evident from the extensive record of this case.

In re Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc., 07-cv-7829 (S.D.N.Y.), in which the court stated I think [MURRAY FRANK LLP] performed extraordinarily well in the settlement process and this is an extraordinarily positive settlement for the class and I have to attribute that significantly to the performance of class counsel in the settlement discussion process.

In re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation, 05-CV-8088 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), in which the Court, before appointing our law firm sole Lead Counsel, stated: we know [MURRAY FRANK LLP] very well, so they are both esteemed and experienced attorneys in these matters, and I don't think anybody could go wrong with either one of them to be honest with you.

In re EIS International, Inc. Securities Litigation, 97-cv-813 (D. Conn. 2006), in which the Court stated: I wanted to compliment [MURRAY FRANK LLP] . . . . We have been together quite a long time in the case and I appreciate all the fine legal work that you've done.

Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001), in which the court expressed an appreciation for how difficult this case was for all sides, for how hotly contested many of the issues in this case were from the get-go and how reaching a settlement, given all of those considerations, was particularly difficult; so I commend all of you for persevering in the efforts that you made toward reaching a settlement . . . [and] for achieving what I find to be a fair, adequate and reasonable result[.]

Miller v. Bonmati, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 15849, Lamb, V.C. (Del. Ch. March 18, 1999), in which the Court stated I am quite pleased by the work that was done by [MURRAY FRANK LLP]. They seem to have done a very professional job of dealing with a difficult situation and have obtained, from everything I can ascertain from the record in front of me, quite a beneficial settlement that gives an opportunity for this situation to work itself out.

Adair v. Bristol Technology Systems, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), in which Judge Robert Sweet stated [MURRAY FRANK LLP] were skilled advocates and negotiators.

Adair v. Microfield Graphics, Inc. (D. Or. 1998), in a case that recovered 47% of estimated damages, the Court noted [MURRAY FRANK LLP] have exhibited a high quality of work in prosecuting this action.

Steffen v. Playmobil USA, Inc., Civ. No. 95-2896 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Court compliment[ed] both counsel in the fine job done negotiating with each other and also the legal work that has been submitted to the Court.

RECENT CASE DEVELOPMENTS

April 5, 2011: The Court in West Virginia Investment Management Board v. Residential Accredited Loans, Inc., C.A. No. 10-C-412 (Circuit Ct. Kanawha Cty., W. Va.), sanctioned Deutsche Bank Securities for discovery violations.  According to Ms. Sailer, lead plaintiff's counsel, Deutsche Bank did not oppose the imposition of sanctions.  Click here for a copy of the order.

February 2, 2011: In West Virginia Investment Management Board v. RALI, et al., after a hearing at which Ms. Sailer argued for the Investment Management Board, the Court denied all motions to dismiss, finding Plaintiff adequately pleaded claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the West Virginia Uniform Securities Act.

August 26, 2010: The Plaintiff in West Virginia Investment Management Board v. RALI, et al., in which Ms. Sailer serves as lead plaintiff's counsel, has obtained a favorable decision in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia held that for purposes of federal court jurisdiction, the West Virginia Investment Management Board ("Investment Management Board") should be treated as the State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The federal court ordered the case remanded to West Virginia state court. In so doing, the court agreed with MFS's argument that removal of the lawsuit was improper because federal jurisdiction over the state claims had not been shown. In general, a state is not a "citizen" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Here the debate focused on whether the Investment Management Board was an arm of the State. The court concluded that the Investment Management Board ultimately acts as an extension of the State in managing public funds benefitting public employees, employers and agencies, even though it is permitted to function with a certain amount of independence so that it can manage its investments with the requisite fiduciary care.