Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc et al

Case # 07-cv-06140
Case Name Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc et al
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

VeriFone Holdings acquired Lipman Electronic Engineering on April 10, 2006. They made improper claims regarding the merger and how it would increase VeriFone's profitability. As a result of these claims, VeriFone Holdings shares increased in value a hundredfold. However, throughout the class period, VeriFone executives unloaded $465 million in stock. Many shareholders suffered financial harm due to the effects of the inaccurate reporting and insider trading.

Final Approval Date 02/18/2014
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Both objections were overruled.
  3. The Court had the following to say in regards to the Brown Objection: "Mr. Brown’s objections are OVERRULED in their entirety and on the merits, without reaching the issue of his standing to object, although the Court notes its inability to reach this issue is MADE MORE DIFFICULT IN PART BY THE INTRANSIGENCE OF COUNSEL for Mr. Brown to produce evidence of standing and counsel’s last-minute decision to decline to appear at the final fairness hearing even telephonically."
  4. Objector Brown (through Attorney Palmer) appealed the Final Approval.
  5. Brown's appeal was voluntarily dismissed, likely thanks to an agreement between class counsel and objector's counsel.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 07/16/2014
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Third Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Stern

Objectors David Stern
Signers Jeffrey R. Krinsk
Attorneys Jeffrey R. Krinsk
Mark L. Knutson
Summary
  1. Settlement is not fair to Israeli class members.
Attachments Objection of David Stern.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeff M. Brown

Objectors Jeff M. Brown
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Notice was not mailed in a timely manner.
  2. Online calculator on the settlement website is actually a ploy to trick class members into opting in to the settlement.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

NOTE: Class counsel attempted to subpoena Jeff M. Brown to determine if he had standing to object. Attorney Palmer threatened to have Class Counsel sanctioned for "abuse."

NOTE: Though Defendants did not oppose the withdrawal of Brown's appeal, they notified the Court that they had not been made aware of the withdrawal ahead of time.

Attachments Objection of Jeff Brown.pdf
Correspondence Regarding Subpoena of Objector Brown.pdf
Response to Objection of Jeff Brown.pdf
Appeal of Objector Brown.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Brown Objector.pdf
Appellees Response to Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Objector Brown.pdf
Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated