Successes

In re PartsBase.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 01-8319

The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The action arose from a $45.5 million initial public offering of common stock by the defendant issuer and a syndicate of underwriters including Roth Capital Partners and PMG Capital Corp. Plaintiffs settled this action for $1.5 million cash settlement for class members.

Ray v. TierOne Corporation, No. 10CV199

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.  The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading statements of earnings and the Company’s banking operations and business.  The parties settled this action for $3.1 million in cash.

Pena v. iBio, Inc., 14-CV-1343-RGA

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out misstatements and omissions relating to the Company’s purported involvement with an Ebola treatment. The parties settled this action for $1.875 million in cash.

In re Spectrum Pharms. Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-2279-RFP-GWF

The Rosen Law Firm was co-Lead Counsel in this consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  The complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information.   Plaintiffs settled this action for $2.995 million in cash.

In re Textainer Financial Servs. Corp., No. CGC 05-440303

The Rosen Law Firm was Co-Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the assets of six related publicly traded limited partnerships. After winning the first phase of a multi-phase bench trial, Plaintiffs obtained a $10 million cash settlement for class members.

Stanger v. China Electric Motor, Inc., No. CV 11-2794-R (AGRx)

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The complaint alleged violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s $22.5 million initial public offering.  The parties agreed to settle this action for $3,778,333.33 in cash.

Garcia v. Lentuo International, Inc., CV-15-1862-MWF (MRWx)

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements. The parties settled this action for $1 million in cash.

Delorosa v. State Street, 17-cv-11155-NMG

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged violations of §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of materially false and misleading business information. The parties agreed to settle this action for $4.9 million in cash.

Press v. Delstaff LLC, No. MSC 09-01051

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, brought in connection with a “going private” transaction valued at $1.25/share for the 6.4 million shares implicated in the transaction. The parties settled this action for $1,642,500 in additional compensation to shareholders.

Lee v. Active Power, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00797

The Rosen Law Firm was sole Lead Counsel in this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  The complaint alleged violations of §§ 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s issuance of false statements relating to a purported distribution agreement with a major information technology provider.  The parties agreed to settle this action for $1.5 million.
Scroll to Top