Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
CORPORATIONS Software company artificially inflated its profits A company accused of artificially inflating its profits agreed to pay a class of shareholders $32.5 million on July 21. The class, who acquired securities of Netherlands-based Baan Co. between Jan. 28, 1997, and Oct. 12, 1998, the class period, claimed that the business management software company inflated its reported revenue and earnings through various schemes. The class claimed that Baan, among other things, misled the public into believing that the company was successfully challenging its rival. Coinciding with Baan’s reported 1996 results, Baan gave a positive outlook for 1997 and beyond. In October 1998, Baan disclosed a shortfall in revenue and a loss for the 1998 third quarter. The settlement carries no admission of liability. Case/Court/Date: In re Baan Co. Securities Litigation,No. 98CV02465-ESH (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), July 21, 2003. Plaintiff’s attorneys:Lee Shalov and Ralph Stone, Shalov, Stone & Bonner, New York; Cary Talbot and Joshua Vinik, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, New York. Defense attorneys:Leslie Fagen and Daniel Leffell, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York; Colleen Mahoney, Saul Pilchen, Andrew Sandler, and Stephen Vaughn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, D.C. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AT&T stole plaintiff’s data-mining technology On its misappropriation of trade secrets claim against AT&T, a technology firm was awarded $12.1 million by a federal jury on July 16. DTM Research LLC claimed that it was approached by the AT&T Corp. to provide data analysis pertaining to the marketing of telecommunication products to people who work at home. Negotiations were initiated, in connection with which DTM began demonstrating to AT&T employees its method of identifying potential customers. AT&T eventually decided not to contract with DTM and several years later, incorporated some of DTM’s technology in a project it called the “universe list.” AT&T claimed the alleged trade secrets were common industry knowledge. Case/Court/Date: DTM Research LLC v. AT&T Corp.,No. 8:96-CV-01852-PJM (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt, Md.), July 16, 2003. Plaintiff’s attorneys:Robert Cohen, Douglas Nazarian, and Ralph Tyler, Hogan & Hartson, Baltimore. Defense attorneys:Karen Corallo, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Dallas; Karen Gulde and R. Lawrence Macon, Akin Gump, San Antonio; Thomas McLish and Jonathan Spaeth, Akin Gump, Washington, D.C. EMPLOYMENT Attorney claimed ‘hazing’ after bringing child to work An attorney who claimed that her supervisor “hazed” her after learning that she had a young child was awarded $610,500 by a federal jury on Feb. 28. In 1999, Dawn Gallina, 38, began working for the Reston, Va., office of Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. She claimed that, after bringing her child to the office, her relationship with her supervising attorney deteriorated. Gallina claimed that he began calling her in on weekends and making comments about women having a lesser work ethic. After she complained, she was fired. She sued the firm under Title VII for hostile work environment and retaliation. The hostile work environment claim was dismissed on summary judgment. Case/Court/Date:Gallina v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C.,No. 02-647-A (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, Va.), Feb. 28, 2003. Plaintiff’s attorney:Annette Kay Rubin, Leesburg, Va. Defense attorney:Gregory Murphy, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, Alexandria, Va. EMPLOYMENT Corrections officer from India was called a ‘camel jockey’ by co-workers On his hostile work environment claim, a man from India who was called a “camel jockey” by colleagues was awarded $1.16 million by a federal jury July 30. Mathen Chacko, 63, a corrections officer at Jessup, Md.’s Patuxent Institution, a treatment-based prison, alleged that his co-workers ridiculed him because of his ethnicity. In addition to having ethnic epithets hurled at him, he was frisked and locked in a cafeteria. He claimed complaints to superiors went unanswered. He sued the prison under Title VII for national origin discrimination. The prison claimed Chacko never filed a written complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The award is subject to a $300,000 federal cap. Case/Court/Date: Chacko v. Patuxent Institution,No. L-00-1951 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), July 30, 2003. Plaintiff’s attorney:Bryan Chapman, Washington, D.C. Defense attorney:Alan Eason, Maryland Attorney General’s Office, Baltimore. CIVIL RIGHTS Student strip-searched at D.C. Jail during class trip In the case of a 14-year-old boy who was strip-searched while on a class trip to the D.C. Jail, the District settled for $150,000 on July 9. There was no admission of liability. Joseph Bennett, a student at W. Bruce Evans Middle School, went with 15 classmates and two teachers to the jail for what they thought was an ordinary field trip. What the students, all boys identified by the school as having behavior problems, experienced was demonstration of “tough love,” including being yelled at by guards and being ordered to “strip, bend over, and spread ‘em.” A prior suit against the District of Columbia over a similar incident resulted in a $150,000 jury award, and that figure was used as the basis for this settlement. Case/Court/Date: Bennett v. District of Columbia,No. Civil Action 02-729 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), July 9, 2003. Plaintiff’s attorney:Nina Kraut, Washington, D.C. Defense attorney:Robert DeBerardinas, Office of Corporation Counsel, Washington, D.C. Editor’s Note: These jury verdicts were collected and reported by VerdictSearch, an American Lawyer Media affiliate serving lawyers in the D.C. area and nationwide. More information about these cases, as well as full reports on other verdicts and settlements, can be found in the VerdictSearch National Reporter or at www.VerdictSearch.com. For subscription information or jury verdict research call 1-800-832-1900. To submit a case, call (212) 313-9057, fax (212) 313-9145, e-mail [email protected], or use the form at www.VerdictSearch.com/submit.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.