Class Actions

The Munsch Hardt Class Actions group represents plaintiffs and defendants in class action cases around the country. Members of our group frequently work with plaintiffs' class action firms in pursuing business class action cases around the country. One such case involving a squeeze-out of investors in an institutional brokerage firm was tried to a successful bench verdict in Delaware Chancery Court with a resulting settlement in excess of $8 million. Our attorneys have successfully defended major corporations in class action cases in Texas and elsewhere. Munsch Hardt is currently involved in class action cases pending in out-of-state jurisdictions and our experience includes litigating class certification, conducting class and merits discovery, guiding class representatives and defendants through the court approval and notice process, litigating the merits in large class action lawsuits and negotiating complicated class action settlements.

• Representation of the largest owner of country clubs in the United States in putative class actions brought by the club members regarding security deposits and charges in club fees.
• Representation of a major telecommunications company in a putative class action brought in Madison County, Illinois involving an alleged defect in more than three million phone handsets.
• Representation of one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, as lead defense counsel, in a class action case involving three million mobile phones. The case was brought in Madison County, Illinois where the plaintiff sought up to $150 million, which was successfully dismissed.
• Representation of a class action tried in Delaware Chancery Court of a class of 75 individuals who were investors in a limited partnership that owned and operated an institutional securities brokerage firm. The class members alleged they were being squeezed-out of the partnership for an unfair price under a unit redemption program initiated by management and ostensibly approved by a vote of the unit holders. After a week of trial, the Vice Chancellor found management of the partnership had breached their fiduciary duties and the partnership agreement by initiating the unit redemption program in bad faith; the purported vote of the unit holders was not binding on the class because the solicitation materials for the vote were false and misleading and the units redeemed from the class members had a value of more than five times the book value redemption price available under the redemption program. The Vice Chancellor's opinion would have yielded a $9 million+ judgment in favor of the class. The case was settled for $8.5 million after the Vice Chancellor issued his opinion.