BartkoZankel's Unique Capabilities For Handling Investigations During the Current Financial Crisis
Our firm is positioned by lengthy experience to lead in resolving and avoiding problems arising out of the current financial crisis. We have experience handling high stakes, bet-the-company disputes and have proven results. Our real estate expertise combined with our extensive litigation practice puts us in a position to aggressively and skillfully bring matters to a successful conclusion. The recent addition of Charles G. La Bella as Of Counsel greatly enhances the firm's resources for effectively working with financial institutions and governmental agencies to resolve complex matters arising out of the current financial crisis. La Bella's skills, honed after years of experience in the United States Attorneys' Office and Department of Justice, have enabled him to adeptly plan and manage internal investigations and complex litigation, and deal effectively with governmental regulators and prosecutors. The firm's experience in both prosecuting and defending these cases has given it valuable insights which many firms lack.
Examples of the types of cases that we have recently handled and results obtained include the following:
1. United States v. Swanson
Case No. CR-06-0692 PJH, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.
We successfully defended our client in a criminal antitrust price-fixing case involving the dynamic random access memory ( DRAM) industry after a month long jury trial. All of the other corporate and individual defendants had plead guilty, and the government focused all of its energies on convicting our client. The case was closely watched by the legal community, and after days of deliberation, the jury announced that it was hung, with 10-2 in favor of acquittal. The Department of Justice dismissed the case. Our success was due in large part to our ability to establish and master a multi-million document database and cull key information from that.
2. Grafton Partners v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 2002056106 (also known as the PinnFund litigation)
In this case, which ended in 2007, we represented a class of investors victimized by a Ponzi scheme. The schemers were essentially judgment proof and, working with the SEC and its receiver, and a bankruptcy trustee, we crafted litigation and strategies to pursue third (deep pocket) parties that we claimed enabled the scheme to go forward. We recovered in excess of $100 million in settlements for the class from a major California bank, an international accounting firm, and several law firms after several years of hard-fought litigation. The case was also the subject of several Court of Appeal opinions and a California Supreme Court opinion.
3. Hoffman v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 2001-022881
Our client, American Express, was sued in a nationwide class action concerning its travel insurance program. Claims were predicated on consumer protection statutes and common law theories. The case is currently set for trial for the late summer of 2008.
4. Goldfields Limited v. Harmony Gold Mining Company, Ltd.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2004-2005
Provided strategic advice to South African mining company in connection with highly publicized hostile takeover bid. Matter involved assistance in valuation of client in light of various misrepresentations.
5. Fitzgibbons v. Dollar Financial Corporation
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG 07-347097
Our client, Dollar Financial Corp. is a leading international financial services company serving under-banked consumers and also operates the WeThePeople Forms Centers. We are defending them in a class action involving the WeThePeople franchise centers, claiming that the franchised centers unlawfully practiced law and that elder citizens were mislead into believing that lawyers would be involved in the preparation of their forms. We have developed a number of solid arguments designed to defeat class certification, and have been successful in our attacks on the pleadings.
6. Mark Cisneros, et al. v. Yahoo!, Inc., et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-04-433518
The action was filed against our client Lycos and other defendants, which include most of the significant internet search engines in the United States, including Google and Yahoo! Plaintiffs, represented by the Lerach firm at the time, purport to be representatives of a class of Internet gamblers and the public who was injured as a result of the activity. The defendants all submitted statements to the Court that they have ceased offering ads or paid search links to Internet gambling sites, but plaintiffs contend such policies are ineffective and late. The Court dismissed damages claims against the defendants on behalf of any plaintiffs who lost monies gambling, ruling that such claims are barred by California public policy prohibiting courts from adjudicating gambling disputes. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, and the parties thereafter engaged in substantial discovery and briefing on issues related to injunctive relief. No preliminary injunction was issued against Lycos. The case was eventually settled at a low figure after several search engine providers agreed to indemnify our client.
7. Edwards v. Golden Gateway Center
San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. 454919
This is a class-action by tenants of a large San Francisco apartment/townhouse complex claiming personal injury, emotional distress and interference with their use of their residences arising out of a large construction project. The tenants tried to shut down the project; however, we defeated their request for an injunction, and the project was completed without interruption. The tenants' damage claims remain pending, and will be the subject of a summary judgment motion in the near future.
8. In re Tri Valley Growers
Case No. 00-44089-J-11, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Cal.
We were hired by the Unsecured Creditor's Committee to investigate and prosecute actions against third parties responsible for the demise of California's largest agricultural cooperative. We filed an action against the firm's outside "Big 4" accounting firm, and entered into a favorable settlement on the eve of trial. We also sued the co-op's grower members in a defendant class action, which was also settled favorably. Lastly, we sued the co-op's directors and officers and were able to arrange a settlement with them that was eventually paid by the D & O insurers after litigation was commenced with the insurers. We obtained in excess of $34 million for the bankruptcy estate.
9. In re Daisy Systems
Case No. C-92-1845-DLJ, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.
We represented the trustee in bankruptcy of a hi-tech company that went bankrupt after merging with another hi-tech company. The suit was brought against the investment advisor, Bear Stearns, for negligently failing to perform its duties in advising the take-over. After a lengthy jury trial, a verdict was rendered for $108 million, which was reduced by the district judge to $36 million. The case was then settled for an amount close to the reduced verdict.
10. Other Notable Engagements
We regularly represent many major retailers in lease disputes with their landlords. Our experience handling real estate disputes of all varieties enables us to quickly assess problems and direct cost effective solutions. In the 1990's we, along with several other firms, defended American Honda Motor Co., in a nationwide civil RICO class action brought by Honda dealers arising out of alleged bribes given to sales managers for favorable car allocations. We also defended The Southland Corporation (now 7-11) in various class actions brought by its franchisees. We successfully defended a consumer fraud class action case against a large provider of home alarm systems and were able to reach a favorable settlement due to the brief we filed in opposition to class certification.
The firm has had its fair share of representing troubled financial institutions and their principals. One such case involved the chairman and president of a large Oakland based bank in a shareholders class action that was settled shortly after a jury trial commenced. In that case, we also filed a cross-complaint on behalf of our client against the bank's accounting firm. During the S & L crisis in the 1980's, we defended the president of one of the largest savings and loan associations in America in S.E.C. proceedings, a shareholder class suit arose, and related suits arising out of the company's practices designed to get bad loans off its books.
