Securities Fraud

Securities Fraud

The securities markets provide some of the easiest ways for people to fall victim to the schemes of defrauders.  Federal securities laws have been around since the early 1930s, when Congress passed laws to protect investors from the type of fraud that accompanied the great stock market crash of 1929, including stock manipulation, company misrepresentations, and misleading financial statements.

These laws are intended to protect people like you from losses suffered as a result of securities fraud or corporate misconduct by publicly traded companies -- on the Nasdaq, NYSE, AMEX, or, in some circumstances, in other world stock markets (LSE, DAX, CAC, DBIX, Australia, Tokyo, Singapore, etc.) -- or their management, underwriters, accountants, or auditors.  Securities class actions can involve many different types of fraud or misconduct, from corporate misstatements regarding a company’s revenues, profits, financial status, operations or business condition, to improper accounting manipulations.  The common thread is that this improper conduct artificially inflates the price of the company’s securities, such as stocks, bonds, and options. In short, as a result of this corporate misconduct and artificial stock price inflation, you pay more than the securities are worth.  When the fraud or misconduct is uncovered, the price plummets to its real value, or below it, causing you to lose money.  That is often the first indication that you are the victim of a securities law violation.  It is time to talk to an experienced securities fraud attorney immediately about the possibility of bringing a shareholder lawsuit, a company misrepresentation lawsuit, or a securities fraud lawsuit.

Regardless of your level of investment experience, it would seem there is always someone who can weave a story with just enough truth to seduce you into investing in the next great successful company.  The securities laws, which were intended to protect investors from corporate stock fraud, provide a means for investors to recover some or all of their fraud-induced losses.  For the investor whose portfolio has suffered due to fraud, the expense of a protracted lawsuit involving hundreds or even thousands of hours of legal time, tens of thousands of dollars of legal expenses, and an uncertain outcome is not a viable option.

MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER is a class action securities law firm that addresses this issue by working on a contingent basis to investigate securities violations and pursue securities fraud litigation. Legal fees and expenses are paid from the ultimate settlement received in the securities fraud class action lawsuit. The investor maintains a high degree of influence on the course of the securities fraud litigation, while actual demands on the client’s time are minimized.

Judicial Commendations

MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER has received the following judicial commendations:

Miller v. Bonmati, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 15849, Lamb, V.C. (March 18, 1999), in which the Court stated “I am quite pleased by the work that was done by the plaintiffs’ counsel.  They seem to have done a very professional job of dealing with a difficult situation and have obtained, from everything I can ascertain from the record in front of me, quite a beneficial settlement that gives an opportunity for this situation to work itself out.”

Adair v. Bristol Tech. Systems, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) in which Judge Sweet stated plaintiffs’ counsel were “skilled advocates and negotiators.”

Adair v. Microfield Graphics, Inc. (D. Or. 1998), in a case that recovered 47% of estimated damages, the Court noted “Plaintiff’s counsel have exhibited a high quality of work in prosecuting this action.”

Steffen v. Playmobil USA, Inc., Civ No. 95-2896 (E.D.N.Y.), in which the Court “compliment[ed] both counsel in the fine job done negotiating with each other and also the legal work that has been submitted to the Court.”

Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001), Judge Lisi expressed an "appreciation for how difficult this case was for all sides, for how hotly contested many of the issues in this case were from the get-go and how reaching a settlement, given all of those considerations, was particularly difficult; so I commend all of you for persevering in the efforts that you made toward reaching a settlement . . . [and] for achieving what I find to be a fair, adequate and reasonable result[.]"

Precedent Setting Decisions

MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER is also a leader in interpreting the law:

In Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan 28, 1997), on a case of first impression, the Superior Court of Massachusetts applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts;

In Kinney v. Metro Global Media, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.R.I. 2001), MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER successfully argued on a case of first impression in the District of Rhode Island for the pleading standard for claims against an auditor under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995;

In Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 1998), MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER prevailed on an issue of first impression concerning the liability of a qualified independent underwriter for an initial public offering;

In Sclafani v. Barilla America, Inc., 2004-03542 (N.Y. App. Div.), MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER successfully argued before the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division that General Business Law § 349(d) did not establish a complete defense to Plaintiff’s allegation that Barilla’s packaging misled consumers into believing the company’s pasta was a made in Italy, obtaining a reversal of a trial court dismissal; and,

In Adair v. Bristol Tech. Sys., Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Southern District of New York, successfully arguing that standing under the Securities Act of 1933 was not limited to buyers who purchased directly on an initial public offering.  The opinion was subsequently cited in decisions and secondary sources over 70 times.


MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER has been lead or co-lead counsel in securities actions through­out the United States, including the following:

In re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) (recovery of $40 million); In re Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. Securities Litigation. (S.D.N.Y.) ($19.2 million); In re Picture­Tel Inc. Securities Litigation (D. Mass.) ($14 million); In re Marion Merrell Dow Inc. Securities Litigation (W.D. Mo.) ($14 million); LaVallie v. Owens-Corning Fiber­glas Corp. (N.D. Ohio) ($10 million); In re USX Securities Litigation (W.D. Pa.) ($9 million); Miller v. Bonmati (Del. Ch.) ($9.9 million); Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc. (D. Conn.) (­$8.8 million).

MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER filed over 120 securities class actions in 2004 and has filed over 75 cases through August 31, 2005.  In Verteris’s “Securities Class Action: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Watch,” Q2, 2005 Report, MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER  was ranked fourth in “Plaintiffs’ Counsel Litigation Activity Index” and “Plaintiffs’ Counsel by Total Unique Actions,” and fifth in “Plaintiffs’ Counsel Based on Lead Plaintiff Appointments.”

Our major ongoing cases include: Merrill Lynch (Analyst) Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) - co-lead counsel prosecuting 24 different securities class actions involving false and misleading analyst reports;Williams Companies Securities Litigation (N.D. Okla.) - executive committee member prosecuting claims involving billions of dollars of damages concerning false earnings statements;Salomon (Analyst) Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) - counsel prosecuting four different securities class actions involving false analyst reports;Coca-Cola Securities Litigation (N.D. Ga.) - co-lead counsel representing a class of investors of Coca Cola stock.

In the past two years, MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER was appointed as a lead or co-lead counsel in the following additional cases: In re Crompton Corporation Securities Litigation (D. Conn. 2003); In re Intrabiotics Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2004); In re Yukos Oil Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2004); In re Zix Corp. Securities Litigation (N.D. Tex. 2004); In re Praecis Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation (D. Mass. 2005); In re Infineon Technologies Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Lentz v. Citadel Security Software Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2005); In re Coca-Cola Securities Litigation (N.D. Ga. 2005); In re RAMP Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER also represents clients that were appointed lead plaintiff or class representatives in the following cases: In re Williams Companies Securities Litigation (N.D. Okla. 2002); In re Vivendi Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2002); In re Royal Ahold Securities Litigation (D. Md. 2003); In re BellSouth Securities Litigation (N.D. Ga. 2003); In re CMS Securities Litigation (E.D. Mich. 2003); In re Nokia Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2004); In re New York Community Bancorp Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y. 2004);  In re Staar Surgical Securities Litigation (C.D. Cal. 2004); and In re UICI Securities Litigation (N.D. Tex. 2004).


Class Action Lawyers Representing Victims of Securities Fraud

Firm Overview | Practice Areas | Institutional Investor | New Cases | Investigations | Join a Class Action | Settled Cases | Attorneys | Articles | Media Inquiries | Contact Us | Home | Disclaimer | Site Map Client Login Sign Up