Please visit our Current Cases page to see some of the additional cases that we are currently working on.

Click here for a detailed one (PDF format)

In re Zyprexa Litigation,
MDL 1596.
The firm represents over 300 clients who now suffer from diabetes after ingesting Zyprexa. William M. Audet of the firm has been appointed a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee.

In re Baycol Litigation,
MDL 1431, United States District Court, Minnesota.
William M. Audet serves as Court appointed member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee relating to Baycol, defective medicine.

In re Metabolife Litigation,
JCCP 4360 (California).
Firm member William M. Audet serves as Court-appointed member of the State Steering Committee.

In re Vioxx Litigation,
MDL 1657, New Jersey State Court.
The firm and its affiliated counsel have filed in excess of 300 complaints against Defendant Merck & Company arising out of injuries associated with Vioxx.

In re Bextra Litigation,
MDL No.
1699, Northern District of California. Firm member William M. Audet serves as Court-appointed member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

In re Intergel Litigation,
Florida State Court.
William M. Audet and Susanne Scovern filed over a dozen cases on behalf of women injured using a Johnson & Johnson product called Intergel. The firm and its co-counsel have recovered millions and millions of dollars for their clients in a confidential settlement with the company.

In re Defective Ancure Products Liability Litigation,
Northern District of California and California Superior Court.
The members of the firm represent dozens of individuals who were allegedly implanted with a defective device. The firm has filed cases in Santa Clara Superior Court and United States District of California.

Galanti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
United States District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 03-209.
William M. Audet and Michael McShane served as Court-appointed Class Counsel with a pending $300 million settlement involving a defective radiant heating system.

Williams v. Weyerhaeuser and Chambers et al., v. Weyerhaeuser,
San Francisco County Superior Court, California, No. 995787; King County Superior Court, Washington, No. 98-2-21084-2 KNT.
The firm members served as one of three class counsel in a class case involving allegations of defective siding manufactured by Weyerhaeuser.

Roy v. Cemwood Corporation,
Contra Costa County Superior Court, California, No.: MSC99-00499.
The firm serves as one of four co-lead counsel in a national class case involving allegations of defective roofing products.

Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe),
et al., v. Philip Morris, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. C 99-02621 MHP.
The firm represented Native American tribes challenging the $200 billion-plus state tobacco agreement on the grounds that it violated their civil rights.

In re Stucco Litigation (Ruff v. Parex) County of New Hanover,
North Carolina, No. 96-CVS-0059.
Firm member William M. Audet serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs Steering Committee. The case was filed on behalf of homeowners who have defective synthetic stucco on their homes.

"Fen-Phen" Product Liability Litigation,
MDL 1203.
The Firm previously filed a medical monitoring and punitive damage claim on behalf of California residents.

Stuart Hanlon, et al., v. Chrysler Corporation,
United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-95-2010 CAL.
The firm's attorneys worked on a case seeking correction of defective rear hatch door lock failures in nominal impacts for 3,300,000 owners of Chrysler minivans.

Smith v. Hewlett-Packard,
Santa Clara County, California, Superior Court, CV 776794.
Contrary to HP's representations, their CD recorders could only consistently and reliably record less user data than the industry standard. When attempting to record more than this, error messages appeared, previously recorded data was lost, and the CD became useless. The firm serves as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel.

Roberts v. Bausch & Lomb,
United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, No. CV-94-C-1144-W.
William M. Audet of the firm served on the Plaintiffs' Committee in this nationwide consumer class action. A settlement against Bausch & Lomb was approved by the Court on August 1, 1996. Under the settlement, Bausch & Lomb agreed to $68 million in cash and products to 1.5 million buyers of the company's disposable contact lenses.

Hilla v. TCI Cablevision,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV 769105.
The firm's attorneys represented California residents involving allegedly illegal overcharges by the cable company for late fees.

Plotkin v. General Electric,
United States District Court, Northern District of California, Action No. C-92-4447.
The firm's attorneys charged General Electric with defrauding the American public in the sale of Energy Choice Light Bulbs, which were claimed to be energy efficient, required less electricity, and would preserve the environment. General Electric subsequently settled this national class action.

Afanador v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc.,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV 767677.
The firm's attorneys, along with other Plaintiffs' Counsel, represent consumers in claims against H&R Block arising out of its "Rapid Refund" program.

Sears Automotive Center Consumer Litigation,
United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. C-92-2227.
The firm's attorneys sued on behalf of consumers defrauded by Sears Auto Centers. William M. Audet was appointed to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, and the case was successfully concluded in August 1992.

Chamberlain v. Flashcom,
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 00 CC 04212.
In this class action, the firm's William M. Audet served as one of Plaintiffs' counsel seeking a remedy against Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business conduct.

Providian Credit Card Cases,
San Francisco Superior Court, JCCP No. 4085.
Through television commercials, direct mail and the internet, the Providian Defendants purported to facilitate the issuance of credit cards to people with damaged credit histories. William M. Audet served as class counsel.

In re Google Litigation,
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
The firm represents advertisers on Google's web pages who claim to have been overcharged for advertising through a complicated monthly charge program.

In re Kia Litigation,
Orange County Superior Court.
William M. Audet of the firm served as class counsel in a number of jurisdictions in a case involving claims by Kia regarding its automotive products. The case was settled with a significant monetary and non-monetary recovery for the class.

In re Unum Provident Litigation,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, MDL No. 1552.
William M. Audet and Michael McShane serve as Court-appointed lead counsel in a pending class action on behalf of Plaintiffs alleging the wrongful denial of benefits under long term disability policies.

In re Industrial Life Insurance Litigation,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, MDL Nos. 1371, 1382, 1390, 1391, and 1395.
William M. Audet of the firm serves on the Court-appointed Plaintiffs Steering Committee. The class cases involve claims that insurance companies overcharge African-Americans for life and health insurance.

In re Life of Georgia Insurance Litigation,
Thirteenth Judicial District, Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee.
Reached nationwide class settlement in 2002 on behalf of a class of insureds discriminated against in the issuance of life insurance. William M. Audet was lead counsel.

Thorn v. Jefferson Pilot Insurance Co.,
United States District Court, South Carolina.
Nationwide class on behalf of purchasers of life insurance. Michael McShane of the firm represents the proposed Plaintiffs class alleging racial discrimination in the issuance of life insurance policies.

In re: Average Wholesale Price Litigation,
MDL Docket No. 1456.
William M. Audet and Michael McShane of the firm serve as Court-appointed members of the Executive Committee, representing Plaintiffs in a nationwide class action alleging the manipulation of pricing for prescription drugs.

In re Tenet Healthcare Litigation,
Los Angeles County, Superior Court, California.
Numerous actions coordinated in 2002 by the Judicial Council. William M. Audet of the firm is one of three Court-appointed lead counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals who were allegedly overcharged directly or through their health insurance for medical services, products and medication.

Lawson, et al., v. Liberty Life,
Birmingham, Alabama, No. 96-1119.
William M. Audet of the firm, along with four other Plaintiffs' Counsel, represents a proposed class of life insurance policy holders of Liberty Life Corporation who were subjected to unlawful life insurance policy "churning" by Liberty Life.

In re PRK/Lasik, Laser Surgery Overcharges Litigation,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV 772894.
William M. Audet and Joseph Russell served as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel in a nationwide class action case alleging antitrust violations again Visx, Inc. and Summit, Inc.

Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation,
United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 1200 (and related cases).
The firm's William M. Audet serves as one of five Court-appointed Discovery Committee members and as Plaintiffs' Counsel in a national class action antitrust case pending against the manufacturers of flat glass.

Toys "R" Us Antitrust Litigation,
United States District, Northern District of California, No. C-97-3931-TEM.
The firm filed a national class action antitrust complaint on behalf of toy consumers.

Los Angeles Milk Antitrust Litigation,
Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, No. BC 070661.
William M Audet and other members of the firm, along with other Plaintiffs' Counsel, represents consumers' claims of antitrust violations against Los Angeles supermarkets for alleged price fixing of milk.

California Indirect Purchaser Auction House Cases,
San Francisco Superior Court, No. 310313.
In this case against Christie's, Sotheby's, and others, Defendants are charged with conspiring to fix commissions for the sale at auction of art and other items in California.

Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases,
San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 2969.
The firm members worked on a case for independent pharmacies pursuing claims against major drug manufacturers for violation of California's price fixing statutes.

In re Vitamin Antitrust Litigation,
California, North Carolina, Tennessee and Maine.
William M. Audet serves as lead counsel in three states and on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in one state in claims involving alleged price fixing by the manufacturers of vitamin products.

In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation,
MDL Docket No. 1311.
William M. Audet serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of price fixing in the Methionine industry.

In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation,
Docket No. 1310.
The firm serves as class counsel in a case involving allegations of antitrust violations in the Bromine industry.

In re Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation,
C.D. Cal., C 99-11475 RJK (AIJx).
Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of carbon fibers were sued by makers of airplanes, spacecraft parts, and industrial and sporting equipment for conspiring to maintain an artificially inflated price for their product. Firm members served as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.

In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation,
S.D.Fla. MDL 1317.
In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to create a monopoly and fix prices of this widely used prescription drug, as well as prevent the sale of any generic bioequivalent to Hytrin. Firm members served as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.

In re Dram Antitrust,
MDL 1486, Northern District of California.
The firm's William M. Audet serves as class counsel in a class action to recover class members' money, lost due to antitrust activity in the DRAM industry.

In re Copper Tubings Litigation,
United States District Court, District of Tennessee.
William M. Audet of the firm was appointed as co-lead class counsel in a case involving an alleged worldwide conspiracy to overcharge customers in the copper tubing industry.

In re CNET Derivative Litigation,
William M. Audet and Michael McShane of the firm filed a case against the corporate Defendants for insider trading and backdating options. The case is pending in San Francisco Superior Court, California.

Adaptec Derivative Litigation,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, Master File No. CV 772590.
The firm serves as Liaison Counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of Adaptec, Inc.

In re Genesis Securities Litigation,
Northern District Court of California.
William M. Audet serves as class counsel on a case filed against Genesis. After the case was dismissed by the District Court, the firm filed an appeal and ultimately settled the case for $1.5 million.

Informix Derivative Securities Litigation,
San Mateo Superior Court, California, Case No. 402254.
The firm served as one of the Plaintiffs' Derivative Counsel in a shareholder lawsuit alleging derivative claims on behalf of Informix.

Solv-Ex Securities Litigation,
Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, New Mexico, No. CV-96-09869.
The firm serves as Plaintiffs' Class Counsel in a suit alleging securities fraud against Solv-Ex Corporation and other insider defendants.

Imp, Inc., Securities Litigation,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV 762109.
The firm represents shareholders of Imp, Inc., in an action against certain insiders of Imp, Inc., for alleged insider trading of the company's stock.

CBT Group Derivative Litigation,
San Mateo Superior Court, California, No. 406767.
The firm's founder William M. Audet served as one of two Plaintiffs' counsel representing shareholders of CBT Group, PLC, in a derivative action against officers and directors of the company.

Oakley Technology Derivative Litigation,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV 75829.
The firm members served as one of three co-lead counsel in a derivative securities case brought on behalf of shareholders of Oakley Technology, Inc., against certain officers and directors of the company.

Horizon Securities Litigation,
United States District Court for New Mexico, No. 96-0442 BB/LCS.
The firm's William M. Audet serves as one of the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel in a securities case filed against New Mexico-based Horizon Corporation for alleged violation of federal securities laws.

Bay Networks Securities Litigation
(Garnier v. Bay Networks, CV 764357; Greeneway v. Bay Networks, CV 765564), Santa Clara County Superior Court, California.
Firm members served as one of four Plaintiffs' counsel representing shareholders of Bay Networks for alleged securities violations.

Unison Healthcare Corporation Litigation,
United States District Court of Arizona, Case No. Civ. 97-0583-PHX.
Firm members served as one of the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel representing investors in Unison Healthcare.

S3 Derivative Litigation,
Santa Clara Superior Court, California, No. CV 770254.
Firm members served as one of the Plaintiffs' lead counsel in a derivative action filed on behalf of shareholders of S3, Inc.

In re Networks Associates Derivative Litigation,
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, California, Consolidated Case No. CV 781854.
In this case, shareholders sued officers and directors of this leading manufacturer of anti-virus and protocol analyzer software who sold over 800,000 shares of their personal stock for more than $33 million by misleading the public regarding its value. William M. Audet of the firm served as Liaison Counsel.

In re Oak Technology Derivative Action,
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, California, No. CV 758629.
Shareholders sued directors and officers to recover more than $100 million Defendants made by artificially inflating the company's stock, representing that exceptional demand for the company's products existed. In fact, the company's shipments of CD-ROM controllers far exceeded what the market could absorb. Three related derivative cases were filed and subsequently consolidated. William M. Audet of the firm serves as lead counsel in this lawsuit.

In re Sybase Derivative Litigation,
N.D.Cal., No. C-98-0252-CAL.
Founded in 1984, Sybase makes computer database management systems. Clients include financial service, telecommunication, energy, government, retail, manufacturing, media, entertainment and healthcare providers. Firm members served as Plaintiffs' counsel in this stockholder's derivative action brought on behalf of Sybase against certain of the company's present and former officers and/or directors for insider trading.