Prominent Cases & Precedent-Setting Decisions

Robbins Geller has the skill and experience to litigate even the most complex and demanding cases. As sole lead counsel in cases such as Enron, Household International and UnitedHealth, the Firm was able to litigate independently and successfully. 

The Firm's securities team includes more than 20 former federal and state prosecutors, trial attorneys, and a top-tier appellate group whose collective work has established numerous legal precedents beneficial to investors.

Prominent Cases

Click to View Additional Prominent Cases  ›
  • In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 05-MD-1720 (E.D.N.Y.). Robbins Geller attorneys are co-lead counsel in a case that has resulted in the largest antitrust class action settlement in history. In December 2013, the district judge granted final approval of a settlement that will provide approximately $5.7 billion to class members, in addition to injunctive relief. Plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa or MasterCard, alleged that the defendants’ collective imposition of rules governing payment card acceptance violated federal and state antitrust laws. The trial court’s final approval decision is currently on appeal.
  • Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. CitiGroup, Inc. (In re WorldCom Sec. Litig.), No. 03 Civ. 8269 (S.D.N.Y.).  Robbins Geller attorneys represented more than 50 private and public institutions that opted out of the class action case and sued WorldCom’s bankers, officers and directors, and auditors in courts around the country for losses related to WorldCom bond offerings from 1998 to 2001.  The Firm’s attorneys recovered more than $650 million for their clients, substantially more than they would have recovered as part of the class.
  • Luther v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 12-cv-05125 (C.D. Cal.).  Robbins Geller attorneys secured a $500 million settlement for institutional and individual investors in what is the largest RMBS purchaser class action settlement in history, and one of the largest class action securities settlements of all time.  The unprecedented settlement resolves claims against Countrywide and Wall Street banks that issued the securities.  The action was the first securities class action case filed against originators and Wall Street banks as a result of the credit crisis.  As co-lead counsel Robbins Geller forged through six years of hard-fought litigation, oftentimes litigating issues of first impression, in order to secure the landmark settlement for its clients and the class.
  • In re Wachovia Preferred Sec. & Bond/Notes Litig., No. 09-cv-06351 (S.D.N.Y.).  On behalf of investors in bonds and preferred securities issued between 2006 and 2008, Robbins Geller and co-counsel obtained a significant settlement with Wachovia successor Wells Fargo & Company and Wachovia auditor KPMG LLP.  The total settlement – $627 million – is the largest recovery under the Securities Act of 1933 and one of the 15 largest securities class action recoveries in history. The settlement is also one of the biggest securities class action recoveries arising from the credit crisis.  
  • In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C2-04-575 (S.D. Ohio).  As sole lead counsel representing Cardinal Health shareholders, Robbins Geller obtained a recovery of $600 million for investors.  At the time, the $600 million settlement was the tenth-largest settlement in the history of securities fraud litigation and is the largest recovery in a securities fraud action in the Sixth Circuit.
  • AOL Time Warner Cases I & II, JCCP Nos. 4322 & 4325 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.).  Robbins Geller represented The Regents of the University of California and numerous domestic and international pension funds in state and federal court opt-out litigation stemming from Time Warner’s disastrous 2001 merger with Internet high flier America Online.  After almost four years of litigation involving extensive discovery, the Firm secured combined settlements for its opt-out clients totaling over $629 million just weeks before The Regents’ case pending in California state court was scheduled to go to trial.  The Regents’ gross recovery of $246 million is the largest individual securities opt-out recovery in history.
  • In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., No. CV-03-BE-1500-S (N.D. Ala.).  As court-appointed co-lead counsel, Robbins Geller attorneys obtained a combined recovery of $671 million from HealthSouth, its auditor Ernst & Young, and its investment banker, UBS, for the benefit of stockholder plaintiffs.  The settlement against HealthSouth represents one of the larger settlements in securities class action history and is considered among the top 15 settlements achieved after passage of the PSLRA.  Likewise, the settlement against Ernst & Young is one of the largest securities class action settlements entered into by an accounting firm since the passage of the PSLRA.
  • In re Dynegy Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-02-1571 (S.D. Tex.).  As sole lead counsel representing The Regents of the University of California and the class of Dynegy investors, Robbins Geller attorneys obtained a combined settlement of $474 million from Dynegy, Citigroup, Inc. and Arthur Andersen LLP for their involvement in a clandestine financing scheme known as Project Alpha.

‹  Click to Hide Additional Prominent Cases 

Precedent-Setting Decisions

Investor and Shareholder Rights

Click to View Additional Investor and Shareholder Rights Cases ›
  • Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc., 185 Cal. App. 4th 1068 (2010).  Concluding that Delaware’s shareholder ratification doctrine did not bar the claims, the California Court of Appeal reversed dismissal of a shareholder class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty in a corporate merger.
  • In re Constar Int’l Inc. Sec. Litig., 585 F.3d 774 (3d Cir. 2009).  The Third Circuit flatly rejected defense contentions that where relief is sought under §11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which imposes liability when securities are issued pursuant to an incomplete or misleading registration statement, class certification should depend upon findings concerning market efficiency and loss causation.
  • Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, _U.S._, 131 S. Ct. 1309 (2011), aff’g 585 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2009).  In a securities fraud action involving the defendants’ failure to disclose a possible link between the company’s popular cold remedy and a life-altering side effect observed in some users, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s (a) rejection of a bright-line “statistical significance” materiality standard, and (b) holding that plaintiffs had successfully pleaded a strong inference of the defendants’ scienter.
  • Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corp., 572 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009).  Aided by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice O’Connor’s presence on the panel, the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court order denying class certification and also reversed an order granting summary judgment to defendants.  The court held that the district court applied an incorrect fact-for-fact standard of loss causation, and that genuine issues of fact on loss causation precluded summary judgment.
  • In re WorldCom Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2007).  The Second Circuit held that the filing of a class action complaint tolls the limitations period for all members of the class, including those who choose to opt out of the class action and file their own individual actions without waiting to see whether the district court certifies a class – reversing the decision below and effectively overruling multiple district court rulings that American Pipe tolling did not apply under these circumstances.
  • In re F5 Networks, Inc., Derivative Litig., 207 P.3d 433 (Wash. 2009).  In a derivative action alleging unlawful stock option backdating, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that shareholders need not make a pre-suit demand on the board of directors where this step would be futile, agreeing with plaintiffs that favorable Delaware case law should be followed as persuasive authority.
  • Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009).  In a rare win for investors in the Fifth Circuit, the court reversed an order of dismissal, holding that safe harbor warnings were not meaningful when the facts alleged established a strong inference that defendants knew their forecasts were false.  The court also held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged loss causation.
‹ Click to Hide Additional Investor and Shareholder Rights Cases 


Click to View Additional Insurance Cases ›
  • Lebrilla v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2004).  Reversing the trial court, the California Court of Appeal ordered class certification of a suit against Farmers, one of the largest automobile insurers in California, and ruled that Farmers’ standard automobile policy requires it to provide parts that are as good as those made by vehicle’s manufacturer.  The case involved Farmers’ practice of using inferior imitation parts when repairing insureds’ vehicles.
  • In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408, 416 (5th Cir. 2004).  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s denial of class certification in a case filed by African-Americans seeking to remedy racially discriminatory insurance practices.  The Fifth Circuit held that a monetary relief claim is viable in a Rule 23(b)(2) class if it flows directly from liability to the class as a whole and is capable of classwide “‘computation by means of objective standards and not dependent in any significant way on the intangible, subjective differences of each class member’s circumstances.’”
‹  Click to Hide Additional Insurance Cases

Consumer Protection

Click to View Additional Consumer Protection Cases ›
  • Consumer Privacy Cases,175 Cal. App. 4th 545 (2009).  The California Court of Appeal rejected objections to a nationwide class action settlement benefiting Bank of America customers.
  • Koponen v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 165 Cal. App. 4th 345 (2008).  The Firm’s attorneys obtained a published decision reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the action, and holding that the plaintiff’s claims for damages arising from the utility’s unauthorized use of rights-of-way or easements obtained from the plaintiff and other landowners were not barred by a statute limiting the authority of California courts to review or correct decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission.
  • Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2007).  In a telemarketing-fraud case, where the plaintiff consumer insisted she had never entered the contractual arrangement that defendants said bound her to arbitrate individual claims to the exclusion of pursuing class claims, the Ninth Circuit reversed an order compelling arbitration – allowing the plaintiff to litigate on behalf of a class.
‹ Click to Hide Additional Consumer Protection Cases
The Firm