THE ROSSBACHER FIRM
NOTABLE CASES
CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
1. Berger v. Hanlon, 129 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 1997), aff'd in part sub nom Hanlon v. Berger, 119 S.Ct. 1706 (1999), implemented by 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 28882. The firm is lead counsel in the leading case in the Ninth Circuit reaffirming the principles of the Ayeni decision and ruling directly that the media are liable pursuant to Bivens for violations of private citizens' Constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 when they engage in joint actions with Government agents. Judge Schroeder held: "This search stands out as one that at all times was intended to serve a major purpose other than law enforcement." Citing "the Second Circuit's decision in Ayeni, that squarely held a residential search videotaped by commercial television cameras was unreasonable, and the officers unprotected by qualified immunity, we reach the same legal conclusions in this case." Review was granted by the Supreme Court and Mr. Rossbacher argued the case on March 24, 1999. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision finding a violation of the Fourth Amendment but held the officers protected by qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court affirmed its decision as to the violation by the media and remanded to the District Court.
2. Ayeni v. CBS, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd, Ayeni v. Mottola, 35 F.3d 680 (2nd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1689 (1995); U.S. v. Sanusi, 813 F.Supp. 149 (E.D. N.Y. 1992). The firm was lead counsel in two cases which have established the constitutional principle that neither law enforcement nor the press may utilize federal search warrants to gain access to private property for publicity purposes without violating the Fourth Amendment. As Chief Judge Newman held: "A private home is not a soundstage for law enforcement theatricals."
3. In re Grand Jury No. 95-1 (Anderson), Subpoena Duces Tecum, 59 F.Supp.2d 1, 27 Media L.Rep. 1833 (D.D.C. 1996). Pursuant to an appointment as Advisory and Assistant Independent Counsel, Henry H. Rossbacher represented the Office of Independent Counsel in litigation with Robert Anderson, Don Hewitt and Mike Wallace of CBS' program "60 Minutes" in proceedings to enforce grand jury subpoenae to testify as to the production of a segment involving Don Tyson and Tyson Foods and to produce audiotape and videotape recordings (including, specifically, unbroadcast outtakes). Chief Judge John Garrett Penn published his hitherto sealed opinion which delineates, inter alia, the law as to the obligation of journalists to produce evidence and to testify in response to federal grand jury subpoenae as well as the scope of journalists' common law and First Amendment privileges to resist testimony and production.
CIVIL AND CLASS ACTION LITIGATION - COMPLETED AND PENDING CASES
1. Levine v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court) No. BC 232370. The firm was co-lead counsel representing a class of consumers who had purchased Cellasene, an anti-cellulite dietary supplement manufactured and distributed by Rexall Sundown, a Florida based company. In that California action and the related consumer protection class action filed in state court in Palm Beach County, Florida, LaRaia v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Case No. CL007021AF, both of which were coordinated with a federal court enforcement proceeding brought by the Federal Trade commission, we secured a nationwide class action settlement worth $12 million to $16 million, including a consumer redress fund that provided victimized consumers with a full refund up to $240.00.
2. In re Western Union Money Transfer Litigation, Master File No. CU010335 (CPS)(UUP). The firm represents the representatives of two of the sub-classes as well as the Class in a worldwide class action asserting claims for violations of RICO as well as the California Unfair Competition Law and its New Jersey and New York equivalents. The settlement classes include approximately seven million consumers located in all fifty of the United States and more than 80 countries that used Western Union's money transfer services to transfer money from one country to another and incurred undisclosed foreign exchange and other charges. The settlement involved an unprecedented worldwide consumer notice campaign involving personal notice via mail, publication of notices in more than 150 newspapers and periodicals worldwide, video and audio news releases, and internet websites. United States District Judge Charles Sifton granted preliminary approval in April of 2004 and final approval is anticipated during the summer.
3. Rueda v. Schlumberger Resources Management Services Inc., (Los Angeles Superior Court) Case No. BC235471. The firm served as class counsel representing a class of Los Angeles residents who achieved significant improvement in the water meters servicing properties in Los Angeles County.
4. Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court) Case No. BC247889. The firm served as co-lead and chief trial counsel in this class action representing California purchasers of Leatherman multi-tools which were misrepresented as having been made completely in the United States in violation of California prohibitions on these misrepresentations in the UCL, CLRA and Business and Professions Code. After trial, Judge Victoria Chaney awarded more than $13 million in restitution as well as ordering significant injunctive and other relief in May of 2004.
5. Cienfuegos v. Ria Telecommunications, Inc., Diaz v. Bancomer Transfer Services, Inc., Cienfuegos v. Finmex, Inc., Lossada v. Dolex Dollar Express Inc., (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (Nos. BC 237432, BC 238061 and BC 239611, BC 237433 and BC 237432). Co-lead counsel in a series of successful cases asserting claims for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California false and misleading advertising prohibitions and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. All cases were resolved providing millions of dollars in benefits to past California consumers and curative relief to consumers in the future.
6. Gonzalez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. BC 232928 (Los Angeles County Superior Court). Co-lead counsel in case successfully litigating propriety of certain fees charged to consumers under the California Unfair Competition Law and providing millions of dollars in benefits to past borrowers and curative relief to consumers in the future.
7. Krishan v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. CV 92-7067 AWT (SHx). The firm was co-lead counsel in this class involving all 21,000 salaried retirees of McDonnell Douglas Corporation in seeking to reinstate their rights to health and welfare benefits after termination by the corporation. The firm has succeeded in obtaining a settlement in the approximate amount of $450 million on behalf of the retirees.
8. Cooperman v. Perelman (SCI TV) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) Case No. BC 1000359. The firm served as co-lead counsel in this class action which resulted in a recovery for the minority shareholders of SCI TV of more than $20 million in cash and negotiable securities. Litigated in the case were issues of the directors' and officers' liability as well as the liability of SCI's counsel.
9. Meachem v. Packard Bell Electronics, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court) Case No. BC 125671. The firm served as counsel in this class action which has resulted in the recovery by purchasers of Packard Bell computers of millions of dollars in damages caused by their purchase of purportedly new products which, in fact, contained used parts.
10. Bennett v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. Penn.) USDC Case No. 93 CV-1668. The firm served as representative counsel for retirees of Unisys Corporation and its various subsidiaries. Plaintiffs obtained a settlement worth more than $100 million on claims that they had been deprived of their retirement benefits by Unisys. The firm continues in a leading role in the remaining parts of the litigation.
11. Rampell v. Tellep (Lockheed) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) Case No. BC 111786. The firm served as counsel for Lockheed shareholders protesting inequity in the terms of the merger between Lockheed and Martin Marietta Corporation. The litigation has obtained a settlement worth tens of millions of dollars in increased dividends and other benefits for the Lockheed shareholders.
12. Snyder v. Price/Costco, Inc. (W.D. Wash.) USDC Case No. C 94-1874. The firm served as co-lead counsel for Price/Costco shareholders challenging the fairness of the demerger by Price Enterprises and the remaining Price/Costco Corporation. The case has thus far produced the following reported decision: [1995 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 98,955 (W.D.Wash. Oct. 30, 1995). Settlement restoring millions of dollars of assets to Price/Costco is final.
13. Bourne v. Premier Anesthesia (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case. No. CV 93-4782 JSL (GHKx). The firm served as counsel for the shareholders of Premier Anesthesia and obtained a multimillion dollar settlement of their securities claims against the directors of the corporation.
14. Hein, Mernin v. Bonney (EECO) (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. CV 90-0651 GLT (RWRx). The firm participated in the representation of the shareholders of EECO and obtained a substantial settlement on behalf of the shareholders in their claims against the management of the corporation.
15. Lentz v. Woolley (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. CV 89-5814 JGD (Sx). The firm served as co-lead counsel in this suit challenging the actions of the ownership and management of six separate limited partnerships whose securities had been devalued due to the mismanagement of the corporations. The suit resulted in restructuring agreements as to the partnerships as well as substantial benefits being obtained by the limited partners. The suit resulted in a significant decision by Judge Davies reported at [1989 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 84,498 (C.D.Cal. June 12, 1989).
16. Brandwine v. Sony Corporation (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. CV 94-8282 JGD (JGx). The firm served as counsel in a shareholders' action relating to the actions of the officers and directors of Sony Corporation. The settlement is final.
17. Enzor v. Reno (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. CV 94-1743 RJK. The firm served as co-lead counsel in an EEO class action on behalf of all of the African-American employees of the United States Bureau of Prisons. The settlement of the case, after certification of the class by the district judge and mediation, is final. The settlement reforms the personnel operations of the Bureau of Prisons in a number of fundamental respects and results in an economic recovery valued at approximately $10 million.
18. Elekon Industries USA, Inc. v. Plastec, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court) Case No. BS035812. Arbitration on behalf of a Singaporean plastics manufacturer against a supplier of defective materials.
19. Haitai America, Inc. dba Targa Autosound v. Jett Racing & Sales, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. 93-0641 LGB (CTx). A major commercial dispute in federal district court on behalf of Haitai Corporation, a major Korean conglomerate.
20. Denny's v. The Home Insurance Co. (Los Angeles County Superior Court) Case No. C579064. This litigation involved bad faith, coverage, reserving and fraud claims brought against a carrier by a major restaurant chain. The litigation involved substantial discovery, including analysis of hundreds of claims and substantial motion practice. The result was a return to the carrier, our client, of a substantial sum and the withdrawal of all pending claims.
21. The Arbutus Corporation v. Danregn Vindkraft (Los Angeles County Superior Court) Case No. C727913. This litigation involved substantial bad faith and coverage claims in amounts over $20 million brought by a windmill field developer against a Danish windmill manufacturer and its carrier. The case involved two trials involving complicated standing, coverage, physical damage and other issues. The carrier achieved a favorable result.
22. The Home Insurance Company v. Taxvest, et al. (C.D. Cal.) USDC Case No. CV 89-4968 DT (Bx). This multiparty litigation involved direct claims against a carrier for bad faith of over $200 million as well as direct physical liability claims of over $50 million. We achieved dismissal of all bad faith claims after extensive litigation. The cases were then settled on terms the carrier felt were extremely favorable.
23. Walbrook Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Spiegel (C.D. Cal.) [1994 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 98,020. This litigation involved our representation of Lloyd's in rescinding the Directors' and Officers' policy of Columbia Savings & Loan. As the printed opinion demonstrates, Lloyd's prevailed after extensive litigation and a trial involving difficult insurance issues.
24. Transportation Insurance Company, et al. v. Mark Kaplan, M.D. (Los Angeles Superior Court) BC 113851. We represented a carrier in suing Dr. Kaplan for damages to the carrier due to his operation of a fraudulent medical clinic and submission of false insurance claims. We obtained an injunction freezing his assets, damages and other relief for our client.
25. Brown v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, (Los Angeles County Superior Court) BC192874. As co-lead counsel we obtained millions of dollars in services for customers of this savings and loan association as well as modifications in the business practices OF Washington Mutural Bank. Our successful appeal is reported at Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 75 Cal. App. 4th 773 (1999).
26. In re Legato Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, (U.S.D.C.N.D. Calif., No. C-00-20111-JF). As lead counsel in this federal derivative action we obtained substantial monetary relief.
PUBLICATIONS
ERISA's Dark Side: Retiree Health Benefits, False Employer Promises and the Protective Judiciary, 9 DePaul Business Law Journal 305 (1997).
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Within the American Response to Domestic Corruption, 15 Dickinson Journal of International Law 509 (1997) and 1 Journal of Money Laundering Control 125 (Henry Stewart, London 1997). An earlier version is also collected in Corruption - The Enemy Within, B. Rider, Ed. (Kluwer, 1997) as "The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: An American Response to Corruption."
Recent Developments in Federal Securities Litigation, 4 European Financial Services Law 191 (Kluwer, 1997).
An Invasion of Privacy: The Media's Involvement in Law Enforcement Activities, 19 Loy. L.A. Ent. L.J. 313, 6 Journal of Financial Crime 240 (Stewart 1998). An earlier version was published by the Washington Legal Foundation Working Paper Series No. 80 (January 1998). Also collected in Vol. I Libel & Newsgathering Litigation - Getting & Reporting the News, 375 (PLI 1998).
BCCI: The Priority of Kings, or What's More Dangerous, the Cavalry or the Indians? 5 Journal of Financial Crime 365 (Stewart 1998).
Let The Punishment Fit The Crime: Aspects of Lawsuits Against Criminal Defendants, 21 The Company Lawyer 27 (Sweet & Maxwell 2000)
Whistle blowing and the American experience: has anything changed?, 24 The Company Lawyer 152 (Sweet & Maxwell 2003)
Return to The Rossbacher Firm Home Page