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).
Fox v. Prime Group Realy Trust, et al., No. 12-cv-09350 (N.D. Ill.) (We represent holders of the Series B preferred shares of Prime Group Realty Trust, whose prime asset (the 330 North Wabash/former "IBM Plaza", now called AMA Plaza) was captured by management for Five Mile Capital, forcing the shareholders out of their equity for far less than full value. The court upheld the complaint on breach of fiduciary duty grounds and certified the case to proceed for the class of Series B shareholders. Discovery is proceeding.
Ambrose v. Security Guard College, Inc., No. 2014-CH-10322 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill., Chancery Div.) (KrislovLaw filed a complaint against Security Guard College, James Andel and Bass Pro Shops for promoting and providing concealed carry weapons classes which did not meet the state's requirements. The state of Illinois revoked Mr. Andel's instructor license and has apparently denied all applicants who took these conceal carry classes on the basis that the classes did not provide the minimum number of hours necessary under the law. Our firm is seeking a recovery from Security Guard College and Bass Pro Shops of the costs incurred by class members who took these classes.
Burrow v. Sybaris Clubs International, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-02342 (N.D. Ill.) (on March 28, 2013 we filed a proposed class action against Sybaris Clubs International for violation of state and federal wiretapping laws. Our complaint alleges that Sybaris, which operates five “romantic getaway” motels in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, secretly recorded every reservation phone line at all five motels from early 2012 through April 2013. The recordings, which were made without the consent of Sybaris employees or customers, captured confidential financial data and – given the nature of Sybaris’ business – highly private personal information).
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 injured by a third-party, retained an attorney and obtained a recovery against the third-party, and against which the City asserted a health care reimbursement lien without reducing its lien pursuant to Illinois' common fund doctrine. The firm prevailed on the City's motion to dismiss, and prevailed on plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment and on the City's cross-motion for summary judgment. The City has appealed these decisions and the matter is currently pending in the Illinois Appellate Court).
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). The matter is currently pending decision by the Illinois Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Illinois Collection Agency Act.
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
Underwood, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 13-cv-5687 (N.D. Ill.) (Dispute over the rights of certain annuitants of the City of Chicago Annuity & Benefit Funds for Police, Firemen, Municipal employees and Laborers to permanent coverage under the City’s retiree healthcare plan, subsidized by their respective Annuity & Benefit fund, unreduced from the terms and subsidy in effect on their dates of entry into their respective Funds).
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)).