Home

Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al. : HHS obtained a jury verdict for $30 million on behalf of Pauma Band in business interference action.

Currency Conversion Cases: Hulett Harper Stewart and Dennis Stewart acted as one of the principal counsel representing consumers seeking to recover inadequately disclosed currency conversion fees. This included acting as trial counsel in a successful action against Visa and MasterCard and as one of the principal counsel in actions resulting in a $336 million proposed national settlement involving Visa, MasterCard and a number of their member banks.

National Metal Technologies, Inc. v. Alliant Techsystems Inc., et al. : Hulett Harper Stewart secured a $6 million dollar settlement for two companies of their antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference claims against a major public company.

Enriquez v. Edward D. Jones & Co.: HHS, as co-lead class counsel, recently settled the case against Edward Jones & Co. for $127.5 million, arising from allegations of a commission kick-back program.

 

PAUMA WINS $30 MILLION VERDICT AGAINST HARRAH'S

December 1, 2006 - Today a San Diego jury of eight men and four women found that in 2004 Harrah’s intentionally interfered with a proposed $300 million hotel/casino project between Caesars Entertainment and the Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma Yuima Reservation, which is located in North San Diego County. The Pauma Tribe was awarded $30 million in damages as a consequence of the intentional interference.

At trial, the Pauma Tribe alleged that it entered a deal with Caesars Entertainment in June 2004 to build a $300 million Caesars resort hotel/casino on Pauma’s North San Diego County reservation. On July 14, 2004 the proposed $9.5 billion merger between Harrah’s and Caesars was announced. Because Harrah’s operated a competing casino on the adjoining Rincon reservation, there was a conflict in Harrah’s operating both the Rincon resort and the Pauma project. Pauma alleged that because of these conflicts, Harrah’s took steps to interfere with the Pauma deal with Caesars. Pauma alleged that Harrah’s and Caesars took steps to kill the Pauma deal to avoid suit by Rincon. Plaintiff Pauma alleged, and the jury agreed, that Harrah’s conduct was intended to and did ultimately stop the Caesars Pauma Project from being built, and that the Pauma Tribe suffered lost profits and added costs totaling $30 million.

The Tribe was represented by Dennis Stewart and Kirk Hulett of Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, San Diego, California. Harrah’s was represented by Roger Magnuson of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

 

HUELETT HARPER STEWART LLP, CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL REACHED $127.5 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH EDWARD JONES & CO.

December 2006 – Hulett Harper Stewart is a co-lead class counsel against Edward Jones & Co., one of the largest brokerage firms in the United States. The complaint seeks recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars Edward Jones received from mutual funds in exchange for Edward Jones agreeing to recommend those funds as its “preferred funds.” Edward Jones recently settled this case for 127.5 million.

 

HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST INFOSONICS CORPORATION

June 13, 2006 - Hulett Harper Stewart LLP has filed a class action complaint against InfoSonics Corporation (“InfoSonics”) (AMEX: IFO) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of InfoSonics during the period from May 9, 2006 through and including June 9, 2006 (the “Class Period”).

The complaint alleges that InfoSonics and its top officers engaged in a scheme to defraud InfoSonics investors in violation of the federal securities laws by reporting false financial results on May 8, 2006 for its first quarter ended March 31, 2006. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew, or with deliberate recklessness disregarded, that the Company had improperly accounted for warrants issued in connection with a January 2006 private placement which enabled it to report net income of $1.738 million for that quarter. Before the market opened on Monday, June 12, 2006, InfoSonics shocked the market when it disclosed that it would need to restate its previously reported net income for the first quarter down to $1.173 million, a decrease of 32.5%, due to the improper accounting treatment of the warrants. InfoSonics stock immediately plunged more than 28% that day on extraordinarily high volume.

The complaint further alleges that, while in possession of material nonpublic information concerning InfoSonics accounting for the warrants, defendants sold massive amounts of their personal holdings between May 11, 2006 and June 7, 2006 for proceeds exceeding $3 million. Indeed, as the Company admitted in a Form 8-K filed on June 12, 2006 with the SEC, InfoSonics had determined by Monday, June 5, 2006 that it would need to restate its previously reported financial results because it had improperly accounted for the warrants. Nevertheless, its Chief Financial Officer and the President of the Company's Latin American operations continued to sell their personal InfoSonics stock even after that determination.

If you purchased InfoSonics publicly traded securities during the Class Period (May 9, 2006 – June 9, 2006), you may, no later than August 14, 2006, move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you have sustained losses on your purchases of InfoSonics publicly traded securities during the Class Period, please contact Hulett Harper Stewart LLP at office@hulettharper.com or call us at 619/338-1133 for a more thorough explanation of the Lead Plaintiff selection process and the claims asserted against InfoSonics.

HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP AIDS SETTLEMENT OF THE BROADCOM SECURITIES CASE

On June 23, 2005, Broadcom Corporation agreed, subject to court approval, to pay $150,000,000 to settle a securities class action against it, alleging that Broadcom failed to adequately disclose the financial impact of its issuance of warrants to customers in connection with acquisitions. HHS played a significant role in prosecuting the case, under the direction of Heins Mills & Olson, counsel for lead plaintiff Minnesota State Board of Investment.

HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP FILES ACTION ON BEHALF OF PAUMA BAND OF INDIANS

On May 13, 2005, the firm filed antitrust interference with contract claims against two casino operators, Caesars and Harrah's. The claims are on behalf of the Pauma Tribe and asserts generally that Caesars failed to develop a casino on the Tribe's land after Harrah's agreed to merge with Caesars because Harrah's did not want a Caesars brand casino competing with its Harrah's Rincon site, which is just 6 miles from the planned Pauma Caesars casino.

HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP SETTLES AMMUNITION MONOPOLIZATION CASE

During April 2005 Hulett Harper Stewart LLP successfully concluded an antitrust, breach of contract and business interference claim by securing a $6 million dollar settlement for two private business clients. The case, National Metals Technologies, Inc., et al v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., et al., was pending in federal court in San Diego and was settled shortly before trial.

DENNIS STEWART SPEAKS AT ANTITRUST SECTION OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SPRING MEETING

On March 30, 2005, Dennis Stewart, was a member of a four person panel which convened at the ABA Antitrust Section's annual spring meeting to discuss the coordination of government investigative and prosecutorial action, and state and federal complex litigation. The panel included government prosecutors and prominent antitrust litigators. Mr. Stewart is a frequent participant in professional programs in his field of practice. He has participated on panels sponsored by the American Bar Association, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, the Practicing Law Institute and The State Bar of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section on topics which include, settling class actions, coordination of governmental and private litigation and recent developments in California Unfair Competition Law.

 

© 2005-2008 Hulett Harper Stewart LLP. All rights reserved.
Legal Disclaimer

Design by Janel Beckham