Securities Litigation/Corporate Governance/Securities

Krislov Law has vigorously represented stock, bond, and other investors in numerous cases involving violators of the federal securities laws and state fiduciary and statutory duties.  The firm has extensive experience representing investors in securities fraud claims brought under sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and material misstatement and omission claims directed at prospectus and registration documents, brought under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The firm has handled numerous complex cases involving multiple parties, including outside directors, officers, auditors, underwriters, outside counsel, and large shareholders.  The firm has recouped millions of dollars on these types of claims on behalf of investors who purchased securities at artificially inflated prices.

Krislov Law also has extensive experience litigating shareholder derivative actions, where shareholders sue on behalf of the corporation against persons who have harmed the corporation, such as officers and directors of a company that breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in “self-dealing” at the expense of the company.

Additionally, Krislov Law has established a prominent practice representing shareholders of corporations involved in mergers or acquisitions.  In such situations, a corporation’s officers and directors have a duty to shareholders to maximize the value of the shareholder’s investment and to disclose material information to shareholders in considering the transaction.  Krislov Law has enhanced shareholder value and disclosures in numerous proposed transactions.

Finally, for institutional and high-net worth investors, Krislov Law offers portfolio monitoring at no charge.  That service provides clients of a free review of their portfolio to determine whether a portfolio loss may be recoverable through litigation by our firm.  In setting up the service, our firm will coordinate with your designated person(s) the confidential and secure transfer of portfolio data for us to review and report to you on possible recoverable losses.  Upon identifying such a situation, we will provide you with options on potential actions to take and avenues to pursue, including seeking selection as lead plaintiff, bringing an individual rather than class case, or monitoring other litigation.

Representative cases where our firm acted as lead, co-lead or executive committee level counsel in which federal securities law and state related claims have been asserted, and have achieved significant recoveries, include:

  • 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).
  • DeNicolo v. Telular Corp., et al., No. 13 CH 13614 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill., Chancery Division) (Served as lead counsel for shareholders in achieving disclosure settlement in May 2013 transaction involving management's agreement with financial buyer to take company private).
  • Ryan v. Gifford et al. Civ. A. 2213-CC (Del. Ch.) (Options backdating litigation.  We were initial and co-lead counsel in Delaware Chancery Court derivative litigation challenging Maxim Integrated Products Inc.’s backdated employee stock option practices; achieved significant legal victories before settling for $38 million in cash, and unique corporate governance changes.  The legal victory that we achieved in this case was ground-breaking in favor of investors and is considered the primary cited Delaware case on corporate governance. Ryan v. Gifford, 918 A.2d 341 (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2007)).
  • In re Prudential-Bache Energy Income Partnerships Sec. Lit., MDL 888 (E.D. La.) (We were lead objectors counsel that blocked the initial unfair “roll-up” of $500 million oil and gas partnership settlement into an entity to be controlled (and owned some 30%) by the same individuals whose fraud upon the limited partners is what gave rise to the litigation in the first place, uncovered core wrongdoing at Prudential’s Direct Investment Group, forced auction of properties, and actually identified and contacted the company who placed the high bid for the properties; our Firm’s efforts increased the settlement value for the limited partner investors by $120 million). 
  • In re Prudential Securities Ltd. Partnership Sec. Litig., MDL 1005 (S.D.N.Y.) (Our Firm forced the disclosure of the internal “Locke Purnell” investigation report documenting the systemic fraud in Prudential’s “Direct Investment Group”, which led to our launching the “global Civil RICO” case, which recovered more than $400 million for investors in all the rest of the 700+ Prudential limited partnerships); 163 F.R.D. 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (preliminarily approving settlement). 
  • Mercury Finance Co. Sec. Litig. (Coordinated federal, state, and bankruptcy proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois) (we served as lead counsel of state law securities fraud purchasers from failure of Lake Forest-based subprime auto lender.  Helped lead multi-constituent claimant group through bankruptcy and federal securities litigation and arbitration, which recovered over $50 million for all, for a class which comprised of stock and bond purchasers, holders, direct and derivative claimants).
  • Sumitomo Bank of California (California state court) (we served as co-lead counsel in an underpriced bank takeover, challenged in California state court, which produced $4 million recovery for shareholders).
  • Blumberg v. Glenborough Realty Trust, C.A. 291223 (Cal. Superior Ct. San Mateo County)  (we served as lead counsel in challenging partnership rollup of limited partnerships; case successfully settled).
  • In re Safety-Kleen Rollins Shareholder Lit., (D. S.C. Anderson, D. J.) (we served as co-lead counsel on behalf of former Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. shareholders bringing claims against waste disposal company, Safety-Kleen Corp. and its predecessor, Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (LESI), its officers and directors, and outside auditors, for their issuance of a false and misleading Proxy Statement issued to Rollins shareholders as part of a reverse acquisition of Rollins by LESI.  After prevailing against numerous legal challenges raised by defendants, including Safety-Kleen’s bankruptcy stay, numerous motions to dismiss and summary judgment, and obtaining class certification, we settled the case for $3.15 million, which constituted approximately 90% of the class’s estimated damages). 
  • In re BankAmerica Securities Lit., MDL 1264 (E.D. Mo., Nangle, D.J.) (We served as Executive Committee Member and second chair firm on behalf of the BankAmerica investors, pursuing 10b-5 and 14(a) securities fraud claims against defendants involved in fraudulent merger between Nationsbank and Bank of America, producing $163 million portion of $490 million overall recovery).
  • In re State Street Fixed Income Funds Litigation (we served as lead counsel for individual opt-out claim for the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Dubuque, Iowa in connection with their investment in commodities and mortgage-backed securities; recently obtained a favorable confidential settlement).
  • In re Jacuzzi Brands S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 2477-CC, (Del. Ch.): on executive committee to achieve settlement based on corporate therapeutics and reduction in the termination fee in connection with Apollo Management Co.’s takeover of Jacuzzi.
  • Ryan v. John H. Harland Co., No. 2007CV128712 (Fulton Cty. GA): lead counsel in achieving disclosure settlement in connection with its takeover by M&F Worldwide Inc.
  • Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., C.A. No. 2924-VCS (Del. Ch.): lead counsel in achieving therapeutic settlement in connection with Clayton Dubilier & Rice’s takeover of The ServiceMaster Company.

© 2011 Krislov & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. | Tel: 312.606.0500