Highlights of the Firm’s Litigation Work

The Firm’s litigators work on a wide range of challenging assignments, spanning our global practice and assisting our clients in the successful resolution of a number of important and precedent-setting matters.

Recent highlights include:

• In the Enron securities class action – widely considered to be the most complex and largest securities class action litigation ever – S&C has represented defendants Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, “Barclays”) for more than seven years. In the last year, as part of its long-term litigation strategy, Barclays achieved a successful final result of that litigation, obtaining summary judgment from the district court dismissing the securities fraud claims brought by the class against Barclays and Barclays’ co-defendants, Credit Suisse and Merrill Lynch. Plaintiffs had sought damages of $40 billion under the theory that financial institutions had a duty to disclose Enron’s financial position to investors; other financial institution defendants had settled these claims, agreeing to pay a total of $6.6 billion to plaintiffs in 2005.
• Acting as liaison counsel for 55 underwriting firms, S&C secured a groundbreaking decision that denied class certification in 306 IPO cases. The Second Circuit’s opinion in In re IPO Securities Litigation set the stage for a favorable settlement that was recently approved.
• Representing UBS in class action and derivative litigation arising out of UBS’s role as lead investment banker to HealthSouth.
• Representing a number of financial institutions and other clients in matters arising out of the subprime lending crisis, including many non-public investigations of events in the subprime securitization market being run by the DOJ, the SEC and several state Attorneys General. We also represent clients in several civil lawsuits relating to subprime lending, including Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. in putative class actions brought by Moody’s stockholders claiming that Moody’s and several of its executives violated federal securities law by failing to disclose that the agency’s subprime ratings were allegedly inflated; UBS in putative class actions challenging the disclosure of financial information, and officers and directors of JPMorgan Chase named in derivative litigation relating to subprime assets.
• Defending BP in derivative and class action litigation arising out of the shutdown of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in 2006.
• Defending CA in shareholder litigation arising out of the alleged accounting misconduct by prior management.
• Representing a leading financial institution in federal and state government investigations as well as putative class action litigation in connection with the February 2008 marketwide failures in auction rate securities.
• Achieving significant arbitration victories for Swedish client TeliaSonera in its efforts to obtain a controlling interest in Turkcell, Turkey’s biggest mobile phone service provider. In 2007, a Tribunal of the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva held that TeliaSonera was entitled to specific performance of a $3.1 billion contract to purchase control of Turkcell from Cukurova Holding. In 2008, another ICC Tribunal in Vienna found that Cukurova breached a shareholders agreement with TeliaSonera relating to Turkcell by selling its interest in Turkcell to another party.
• Representing Statoil in the settlement of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act-related investigations by the SEC and DOJ, including a deferred prosecution agreement in the Southern District of New York.
• Successfully defending Microsoft during a three-month jury trial in Iowa, resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
• Achieving successful pre-trial results for Philips in patent litigation in which the district court found Philips’ patents to be infringed; on the morning of the trial scheduled to determine damages, defendants agreed to pay substantial royalties to Philips.
• Successfully defending Diageo, ending four years of litigation relating to allegations that Diageo’s advertising practices “targeted” persons under the legal drinking age. After plaintiffs’ legal theories were repeatedly rejected by trial and appellate courts in a series of decisions in class actions filed across the U.S., plaintiffs agreed to terminate all remaining actions and appeals. Diageo paid nothing.