On-going Cases

Krislov Law has numerous on-going cases.  If you have any information about any of these matters or were damaged by the practices alleged in any of these cases, please contact us for a free consultation.  The on-going cases and copies of the complaint we filed include:

Securities Fraud/Corporate Governance

In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2:03-CV-05336-LDD (E.D. Pa.) (We currently represent institutional investors and were appointed by the court as sole lead and class counsel on behalf of both equity and debt securities purchasers in securities fraud litigation involving the collapse and bankruptcy liquidation of a $2 billion medical equipment finance company; to-date we have overcome numerous legal challenges, reviewed millions of documents, taken over seventy depositions, retained and challenged numerous experts on issues of market efficiency, accounting and auditing matters, loss causation and damages, obtained a court order granting class certification, which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed; prevailed on summary judgment motions, and recovered over $21 million from certain inside and outside directors, paid from their own personal funds, certain third-parties and one of the company’s largest shareholders; we continue to vigorously pursue federal securities fraud claims against the company’s auditors and certain directors and officers).  Notable reported decisions in this case include: In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig., 249 F.R.D. 196 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification against all but one defendant), aff’d, 639 F.3d 623 (3d Cir. 2011) (rejecting defendants’ challenges to the adequacy of lead plaintiffs based on their trading strategies and the efficiency of DVI’s stock and bond markets); In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 1307959 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2005) (denying defendants’ motions to dismiss); and  Janovici et al. v. DVI, Inc. et al., 2003 WL 22849604 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (appointing our client as lead plaintiff and our firm as lead class counsel over the objection of applications filed by larger class action firms).

Consumer Protection

In re TSCI, Inc., f/k/a Sharper Image Corporation, No. 08-10322 (Del. Bk. Ct.); we represent a certified class of consumer gift card holders in the Sharper Image bankruptcy (Del. Bk.) asserting priority over general business creditors.  The firm achieved a significant victory for gift card holders, elevating their priority in the Shaper Image bankruptcy.

Stefanski v. City of Chicago, No. 09 CH 29238 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill., Chancery Div.) (firm represents City of Chicago employees and former employees who are or were insured under the City’s healthcare plan and who were injured by a third-party, retained an attorney and obtained a recovery against the third-party, and against which the City asserted a healthcare reimbursement lien without reducing its lien pursuant to Illinois’ common fund doctrine.  The firm prevailed on the City’s motion to dismiss and is currently proceeding with discovery).

Murray v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al, No. 09-cv-5744-CW (N.D. Cal.) (Firm represents California plaintiff who purchased Kenmore brand clothing dryer that was deceptively marketed as containing a 100% “stainless steel” drum when in fact the drum contained mild steel that caused clothing to damage and rust.  The firm recently defeated Defendants Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Class Allegations and was permitted to pursue plaintiff’s California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law claims on a class-wide basis.

Debt Collection and Mortgage Foreclosure Abuses

LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 2011 IL App. (1st) 092,773 (action against debt collector who pursued collection against debtors without being licensed; prevailed in unlicensed debt collector’s motion for rehearing of Order affirming lower court’s decision to void debt collector’s judgment against debtor for lack of license; LVNV’s petition for leave to appeal denied (Nov. 30, 2011).

Brown v. Universal Fidelity Corp., (n/k/a Universal Fidelity, L.P.), 01-CH-17979 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) (action against debt purchaser who unilaterally changed terms of agreements that uninsured motorists who were at fault in accidents with Allstate-insured drivers entered into with Allstate; prevailed on motions to dismiss and summary judgment; case currently proceeding despite debtor’s bankruptcy filing).

Busuioc v. Citibank, N.A. and Lender Processing Services, Inc., 09 CH 49196 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) (action on behalf of homeowners/borrowers who had a mortgage foreclosure pursued against them by an entity who purportedly acquired ownership of the loan through a fraudulent assignment prepared by Lender Processing Services and/or its subsidiary DocX and who lacked standing to pursue the foreclosure; prevailed on Citibank’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Illinois’ Citizens Participation Act).

Stinnette v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon and Fisher & Shapiro, LLC, 09 CH 19758 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) (action on behalf of homeowners/borrowers who had a mortgage foreclosure pursued against them by an entity who used a Fisher and Shapiro-prepared affidavit of prove-up which falsely represented the amount owed).

Parker v. Encore Credit Corp., et al., 09 L 009891 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) (action on behalf of homeowners/borrowers who were entitled to a mortgage modification but were unfairly denied or delayed in obtaining a modification).

Public Interest, Constitutional Protections and Government Wrongdoing

IVI-IPO, et al. v. Lux, et al., No. 09 CH 28993 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) (City of Chicago Parking Meter Lease Litigation) (Court denied the City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss taxpayers’ allegations that the City’s agreement to sell the parking meters to a private company is unconstitutional (November 4, 2010)).