Jump to content

Murray, Frank & Sailer: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{Dead link}} tagged 1 bare URL ref to 1 dead website: http://www.wmbsettlement.com
Adding short description: "New York City law firm"
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|New York City law firm}}
'''Murray Frank LLP''' (formerly known as Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP) is a law firm based in [[New York City]] that specializes in [[class action]] litigation, particularly in cases involving federal [[Securities fraud|securities]] law, federal [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] law, ERISA, and state [[consumer protection]] law.
'''Murray Frank LLP''' (formerly known as Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP) is a law firm based in New York City that specializes in [[class action]] litigation, particularly in cases involving federal [[Securities fraud|securities]] law, federal [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] law, ERISA, and state [[consumer protection]] law.


==Notable cases==
==Notable cases==
The firm traces its origin to 1963, and has litigated the landmark cases of ''Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc.'' (holding that there is an implied right of contribution among joint tortfeasors)<ref>673 F. 2d 566 (2d Cir. 1982), http://openjurist.org/673/f2d/566/sirota-v-solitron-devices-inc-s-p</ref> and ''Escott v. BarChris Const. Corp.'' (holding that a commencement of a class action tolls the [[statute of limitations]] for claims of other class members).<ref>340 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1965), http://openjurist.org/340/f2d/731/escott-v-barchris-construction-corporation</ref>
The firm traces its origin to 1963, and has litigated the cases of ''Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc.'' (holding that there is an implied right of contribution among joint tortfeasors)<ref>673 F. 2d 566 (2d Cir. 1982), http://openjurist.org/673/f2d/566/sirota-v-solitron-devices-inc-s-p</ref> and ''Escott v. BarChris Const. Corp.'' (holding that a commencement of a class action tolls the [[statute of limitations]] for claims of other class members).<ref>340 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1965), http://openjurist.org/340/f2d/731/escott-v-barchris-construction-corporation</ref>


Brian Murray, a current partner at the firm, prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, in ''Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP'', in which the court applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts.<ref>6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan. 28, 1997).</ref>
Brian Murray, a current partner at the firm, prevailed on an issue of first impression in the [[Superior Court of Massachusetts]], in ''Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP'', in which the court applied the doctrine of continuous representation for [[statute of limitations]] purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts.<ref>6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan. 28, 1997).</ref>


Jacqueline Sailer, a former partner at the firm, prevailed in ''Naevus Intl., Inc. v. AT&T Corp.'',<ref>713 N.Y.S.2d 642 (Sup. Ct. New York Co. 2000).</ref> in which the court established limits on the reach of the [[Federal Communications Act]] on state consumer fraud claims, and ''Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc.'',<ref>170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001).</ref> in which the court addressed the pleading standard for fraud under the [[Private Securities Litigation Reform Act|Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995]] for claims against an auditor, an issue of first impression in the [[United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island|District of Rhode Island]].
Jacqueline Sailer, a former partner at the firm, prevailed in ''Naevus Intl., Inc. v. AT&T Corp.'',<ref>713 N.Y.S.2d 642 (Sup. Ct. New York Co. 2000).</ref> in which the court established limits on the reach of the [[Federal Communications Act]] on state consumer fraud claims, and ''Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc.'',<ref>170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001).</ref> in which the court addressed the pleading standard for fraud under the [[Private Securities Litigation Reform Act|Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995]] for claims against an auditor, an issue of first impression in the [[United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island|District of Rhode Island]].


==Notable settlements==
==Notable settlements==
* '''Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer was court appointed co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that [[Merrill Lynch]], through its analyst [[Henry Blodget]], issued falsely positive analyst reports that Blodget himself did not believe, in an effort to obtain investment banking business. Merrill Lynch was ultimately investigated by the [[New York State Attorney General]] and paid a $100 million fine<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/22/business/100-million-fine-for-merrill-lynch.html|title = $100 Million Fine for Merrill Lynch|newspaper = The New York Times|date = 22 May 2002|last1 = McGeehan|first1 = Patrick}}</ref> for this conduct, while Blodget was barred from the securities industry by the [[Securities Exchange Commission]] and paid $4 million in fines and disgorgement.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-56.htm|title=The Securities and Exchange Commission, NASD and the New York Stock Exchange Permanently Bar Henry Blodget from the Securities Industry and Require $4 Million Payment}}</ref> In 2007, this litigation was settled, resulting in an additional $125 million recovery for shareholders.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/merrill-settlement-idUSN0519185620070905 Reuters]</ref>
* '''Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer was court appointed co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that [[Merrill Lynch]], through its analyst [[Henry Blodget]], issued falsely positive analyst reports that Blodget himself did not believe, in an effort to obtain investment banking business. Merrill Lynch was ultimately investigated by the [[New York State Attorney General]] and paid a $100 million fine<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/22/business/100-million-fine-for-merrill-lynch.html|title = $100 Million Fine for Merrill Lynch|newspaper = The New York Times|date = 22 May 2002|last1 = McGeehan|first1 = Patrick}}</ref> for this conduct, while Blodget was barred from the securities industry by the [[Securities Exchange Commission]] and paid $4 million in fines and disgorgement.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-56.htm|title=The Securities and Exchange Commission, NASD and the New York Stock Exchange Permanently Bar Henry Blodget From the Securities Industry and Require $4 Million Payment|website=www.sec.gov}}</ref> In 2007, this litigation was settled, resulting in an additional $125 million recovery for shareholders.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/merrill-settlement-idUSN0519185620070905|title=Merrill to pay $125 million settlement to investors|date=September 5, 2007|via=www.reuters.com}}</ref>
* '''General Motors Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer served as initial lead counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that from 2000-2006, [[General Motors]] and its auditor [[Deloitte & Touche LLP]] issued financial statements that misstated and mischaracterized GM's [[revenue]], [[earnings]], and [[cash flow]], which artificially inflated the price of various GM securities. In 2008, this litigation was settled, resulting in a $303 million recovery for GM shareholders.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423654461| title = Law.com}}</ref>
* '''General Motors Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer served as initial lead counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that from 2000-2006, [[General Motors]] and its auditor [[Deloitte & Touche LLP]] issued financial statements that misstated and mischaracterized GM's [[revenue]], [[earnings]], and [[cash flow]], which artificially inflated the price of various GM securities. In 2008, this litigation was settled, resulting in a $303 million recovery for GM shareholders.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423654461| title = Law.com}}</ref>
* '''In re Williams Securities Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer served as additional Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that between 2000 and 2002, the [[Williams Companies]] made various false and misleading statements that inflated prices of various Williams securities. In 2007, this litigation was settled, resulting in a $311 million recovery for Williams shareholders.<ref>http://www.wmbsettlement.com/ {{Dead link|date=March 2022}}</ref> Murray, Frank & Sailer represented a client who had purchased Feline PAC preferred securities worth $125; the firm obtained a $10 million recovery for the subclass of that security's purchasers.
* '''In re Williams Securities Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer served as additional Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that between 2000 and 2002, the [[Williams Companies]] made various false and misleading statements that inflated prices of various Williams securities. In 2007, this litigation was settled, resulting in a $311 million recovery for Williams shareholders.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wmbsettlement.com/ |title=Williams Securities Litigation Website |website=www.wmbsettlement.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081013121029/http://www.wmbsettlement.com/ |archive-date=2008-10-13}} </ref> Murray, Frank & Sailer represented a client who had purchased Feline PAC preferred securities worth $125; the firm obtained a $10 million recovery for the subclass of that security's purchasers.
* '''In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer served as additional Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that [[Ahold]] issued various false and misleading statements between 1999 and 2003, and was ultimately forced to announce billions of dollars in [[restatements]] of revenue and earnings in connection with its operations around the world. In 2006, the litigation was settled, resulting in a $1.1 billion recovery for Ahold shareholders.<ref>http://www.knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ahold_Settles_Lawsuit_for_%241.1_Billion {{Dead link|date=February 2022}}</ref>
* '''In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation:''' Murray, Frank & Sailer served as additional Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that [[Ahold]] issued various false and misleading statements between 1999 and 2003, and was ultimately forced to announce billions of dollars in [[restatements]] of revenue and earnings in connection with its operations around the world. In 2006, the litigation was settled, resulting in a $1.1 billion recovery for Ahold shareholders.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ahold_Settles_Lawsuit_for_%241.1_Billion |title=Ahold Settles Lawsuit for $1.1 Billion - Knowmore.org |website=www.knowmore.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090311023827/http://www.knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ahold_Settles_Lawsuit_for_%241.1_Billion |archive-date=2009-03-11}} </ref>

==Notable alumni==
* Maurice Pesso is a partner at White & Williams LLP.<ref>http://www.whiteandwilliams.com/Bio/MauricePesso.asp {{Dead link|date=February 2022}}</ref>
* Paul Curley is a partner at Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.kbrlaw.com/professional/detail|title = Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP - home}}</ref>
* Eric Belfi is a partner at [[Labaton Sucharow]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.labaton.com/en/ourpeople/Eric-Belfi.cfm|title = Eric J. Belfi}}</ref>
* Sharon Lee is a partner at [[Lieff Cabraser]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lieffcabraser.com/attorneys.php?PeopleID=18 |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-03-10 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101228134032/http://lieffcabraser.com/attorneys.php?PeopleID=18 |archivedate=2010-12-28 }}</ref>


==Attorney publications==
==Attorney publications==
Line 42: Line 37:


== External links ==
== External links ==
* Firm Website: http://www.murrayfrank.com/
* Firm Website: [http://www.murrayfrank.com/ Securities Class Action Lawyer - Consumer Class Action Attorney]


{{DEFAULTSORT:Murray, Frank and Sailer}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Murray, Frank and Sailer}}

Latest revision as of 08:56, 21 August 2023

Murray Frank LLP (formerly known as Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP) is a law firm based in New York City that specializes in class action litigation, particularly in cases involving federal securities law, federal antitrust law, ERISA, and state consumer protection law.

Notable cases

[edit]

The firm traces its origin to 1963, and has litigated the cases of Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc. (holding that there is an implied right of contribution among joint tortfeasors)[1] and Escott v. BarChris Const. Corp. (holding that a commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for claims of other class members).[2]

Brian Murray, a current partner at the firm, prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, in Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, in which the court applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts.[3]

Jacqueline Sailer, a former partner at the firm, prevailed in Naevus Intl., Inc. v. AT&T Corp.,[4] in which the court established limits on the reach of the Federal Communications Act on state consumer fraud claims, and Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc.,[5] in which the court addressed the pleading standard for fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for claims against an auditor, an issue of first impression in the District of Rhode Island.

Notable settlements

[edit]
  • Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation: Murray, Frank & Sailer was court appointed co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Merrill Lynch, through its analyst Henry Blodget, issued falsely positive analyst reports that Blodget himself did not believe, in an effort to obtain investment banking business. Merrill Lynch was ultimately investigated by the New York State Attorney General and paid a $100 million fine[6] for this conduct, while Blodget was barred from the securities industry by the Securities Exchange Commission and paid $4 million in fines and disgorgement.[7] In 2007, this litigation was settled, resulting in an additional $125 million recovery for shareholders.[8]
  • General Motors Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation: Murray, Frank & Sailer served as initial lead counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that from 2000-2006, General Motors and its auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP issued financial statements that misstated and mischaracterized GM's revenue, earnings, and cash flow, which artificially inflated the price of various GM securities. In 2008, this litigation was settled, resulting in a $303 million recovery for GM shareholders.[9]
  • In re Williams Securities Litigation: Murray, Frank & Sailer served as additional Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that between 2000 and 2002, the Williams Companies made various false and misleading statements that inflated prices of various Williams securities. In 2007, this litigation was settled, resulting in a $311 million recovery for Williams shareholders.[10] Murray, Frank & Sailer represented a client who had purchased Feline PAC preferred securities worth $125; the firm obtained a $10 million recovery for the subclass of that security's purchasers.
  • In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation: Murray, Frank & Sailer served as additional Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Ahold issued various false and misleading statements between 1999 and 2003, and was ultimately forced to announce billions of dollars in restatements of revenue and earnings in connection with its operations around the world. In 2006, the litigation was settled, resulting in a $1.1 billion recovery for Ahold shareholders.[11]

Attorney publications

[edit]
  • Benjamin Bianco, Recent Developments in Class Arbitration, MEALEY'S LITIGATION REPORT, Sept. 17, 2009.
  • Brian P Murray, Lifting the PSLRA "Automatic Stay" of Discovery, N. DAK. L. REV. 405 (2004).
  • Brian P Murray, Aftermarket Purchaser Standing Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 73 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 633 (1999).
  • Brian P Murray, Recent Rulings Allow Section 11 Suits By Aftermarket Securities Purchasers, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Sept. 24, 1998).
  • Brian P. Murray and Eric J. Belfi, The Proportionate Trading Model: Real Science or Junk Science?, 52 CLEVELAND ST. L. REV. 391 (2004–05).
  • Brian P. Murray and Leo W. Desmond, Determining Excessive Trading in Option Accounts: A Synthetic Valuation Approach, 23 U. DAYTON L. REV. 316 (1997).
  • Brian P. Murray and Joseph P. Garland, Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Federal Securities Laws: The State of Affairs After Itoba, 20 MARYLAND JOURNAL OF INT'L LAW AND TRADE 235 (1996).
  • Brian P. Murray and Sharon Lee, The PSLRA "Automatic Stay" of Discovery, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (March 3, 2003).
  • Brian P. Murray and Gregory B. Linkh, Inherent Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, Aug. 26, 2004.
  • Brian P. Murray and Maurice Pesso, The Accident of Efficiency: Foreign Exchanges, American Depository Receipts, and Space Arbitrage, 51 BUFFALO L. REV. 383 (2003).
  • Brian P. Murray and Joseph C. Rosa, He Lies, You Die: Criminal Trials, Truth, Perjury, and Fairness, 27 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL ON CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONFINEMENT 1 (2001).
  • Brian P. Murray and Jacqueline Sailer, Loss Causation Pleading Standard, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Feb. 25, 2005).
  • Brian P. Murray and Donald J. Wallace, You Shouldn't Be Required To Plead More Than You Have To Prove, 53 BAYLOR L. REV. 783 (2001).
  • Gregory Frank, Preclusive Effect Of The Federal Securities Laws On Actions Brought Pursuant To Antitrust Laws, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (January 7, 2010).
  • Marvin L Frank and Brian D. Brooks, Securities Class Actions: Improving Corporate Governance Through Accountability, INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION SECURITIES LAW COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER, Aug. 2010.
  • Marvin L. Frank and Gregory B. Linkh, Staying Derivative Actions Pursuant to PSLRA and SLUSA, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, P. 4, Col. 4, Oct. 21, 2005, and SECURITIES REFORM ACT LITIGATION REPORTER, Vol. 20, No. 3, Dec. 2005.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ 673 F. 2d 566 (2d Cir. 1982), http://openjurist.org/673/f2d/566/sirota-v-solitron-devices-inc-s-p
  2. ^ 340 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1965), http://openjurist.org/340/f2d/731/escott-v-barchris-construction-corporation
  3. ^ 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan. 28, 1997).
  4. ^ 713 N.Y.S.2d 642 (Sup. Ct. New York Co. 2000).
  5. ^ 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001).
  6. ^ McGeehan, Patrick (22 May 2002). "$100 Million Fine for Merrill Lynch". The New York Times.
  7. ^ "The Securities and Exchange Commission, NASD and the New York Stock Exchange Permanently Bar Henry Blodget From the Securities Industry and Require $4 Million Payment". www.sec.gov.
  8. ^ "Merrill to pay $125 million settlement to investors". September 5, 2007 – via www.reuters.com.
  9. ^ "Law.com".
  10. ^ "Williams Securities Litigation Website". www.wmbsettlement.com. Archived from the original on 2008-10-13.
  11. ^ "Ahold Settles Lawsuit for $1.1 Billion - Knowmore.org". www.knowmore.org. Archived from the original on 2009-03-11.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murray,_Frank_%26_Sailer&oldid=1171473323"