Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP is actively prosecuting numerous high-profile class action cases around the country.  Some of our recent case filings include:

Sonus Securities Litigation

The Firm has been appointed Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in a securities fraud action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving the publicly-traded securities of Sonus Networks, Inc. (“Sonus”). The claims asserted in the action arise from false statements and omissions allegedly contained in Sonus’s publicly-issued financial statements. The action is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired Sonus’s common stock during the period March 28, 2002 and March 26, 2004. For additional information, please contact Solomon B. Cera.

Polychloroprene (Neoprene) Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel to plaintiffs in the Polychloroprene case. The action alleges a conspiracy by the manufacturers of Polychloroprene (also known as Bayprene, Neoprene or cholorprene rubber) to fix prices and allocate customers. This action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Polychloroprene in the United States directly from defendants or their co-conspirators from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. For additional information, please contact Joseph M. Barton.

Hydrogen Peroxides Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is counsel to plaintiffs in the Hydrogen Peroxides case. The action alleges a conspiracy by the manufacturers of Hydrogen Peroxides to monopolize, fix prices and allocate customers. This action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Hydrogen Peroxides, including its derivative downstream products sodium perborate (in either the monohydrate or tetrahydrate form), sodium percarbonate, sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate and persulphates, in the United States directly from defendants or their co-conspirators from January 1, 1994 to the present. For additional information, please contact Joseph M. Barton.

Pulse Oximetry Products Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is counsel to plaintiffs in the Pulse Oximetry Products case. The action alleges a conspiracy by Tyco Healthcare Group and Mallinckrodt Inc. to prevent and destroy competition and acquire and/or maintain monopoly power and raise prices to supra-competitive levels in the market for Pulse Oximetry Products. This action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Pulse Oximetry Products in the United States directly from defendants or their co-conspirators from January 1, 1994 to the present. For additional information, please contact Joseph M. Barton.

Intel Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is counsel to plaintiffs in the Intel antitrust case. The action alleges a conspiracy by Intel to prevent and destroy competition and acquire and/or maintain monopoly power and raise prices to supra-competitive levels in the market for microprocessors that run the Microsoft Windows and Linux families of operating systems. This action is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who indirectly purchased an Intel x86 microprocessor from July 12, 2001 to the present. For additional information, please contact Joseph M. Barton.

BearingPoint Securities Litigation

The Firm was appointed Lead Counsel in an action filed in the Eastern District of Virginia involving the publicly-traded securities of BearingPoint, Inc. (“BearingPoint”). The action is brought on behalf of purchasers of BearingPoint’s securities between August 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). For additional information, please contact Solomon B. Cera.

NBR Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of purchasers of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber ("NBR"), a widely used chemical used in automotive rubber product industry.  The complaint alleges a conspiracy by manufacturers to fix NBR prices, or to allocate customers, in the United States and elsewhere during the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2002.  For additional information, please contact Steven O. Sidener or C. Andrew Dirksen.

Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel in an antitrust class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving heat stabilizers, impact modifiers and/or processing aids (collectively referred to as “plastics additives”).  The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for plastics additives sold in the United States.  The action is brought on behalf of all persons who directly purchased plastics additives from the defendants during the period January 1, 1990 to January 31, 2003.  For additional information, please contact Steven O. Sidener or Karen Fineran .

Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel in an antitrust class action filed in the Northern District of California involving chemicals used to create synthetic rubber and to modify natural rubber (“rubber chemicals”).  The complaint alleges that the defendants and their co-conspirators conspired with each other to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of rubber chemicals and/or to allocate markets and/or customers in the United States.  The action is brought on behalf of all persons who directly purchased rubber chemicals from defendants during the period January 1, 1994 through the present.  For additional information, please contact Steven O. Sidener or Joseph M. Barton.

EPDM Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel in an antitrust class action involving ethylene propylene diene monomer synthetic rubber (“EPDM”).  The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices for EPDM sold in the United States and elsewhere.  The class action, which has been coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Connecticut, is brought on behalf of all persons who directly purchased EPDM from one or more of the defendants from January 1, 1994 through December 12, 2002. For additional information, please contact Steven O. Sidener or C. Andrew Dirksen.

Parcel Tankers Antitrust Litigation

The Firm has been retained to represent the interests of plaintiffs in an antitrust class action involving parcel tanker freight rates.  The complaint alleges that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize freight for shipping liquid chemicals in parcel tankers traveling to and from ports in the United States and elsewhere.  The action is brought on behalf of all individuals and entities who paid freight to defendants to transport liquid chemicals in parcel tankers from June 1, 1998 to February 20, 2003.  For additional information, please contact Steven O. Sidener or Solomon B. Cera.

Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel representing plaintiffs in an antitrust class action involving carbon black, which is a manufactured compound that is used as an ingredient or component in the manufacture of tires, rubber hoses, plastics, inks, paints, ceramics and other products.  Sales of Carbon Black generate billions of dollars in annually. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to raise, fix, stabilize, and maintain at artificially high levels the prices at which they sold carbon black throughout the United States.  The action, which has been coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Massachusetts, is brought on behalf of individuals and entities who directly purchased carbon black from the defendants from January 1999 until the present.  For additional information, please contact Steven O. Sidener and Joseph M. Barton.

Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation

The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel representing the plaintiffs in an antitrust class action involving polyester staple, a petroleum-based fiber used extensively in the textile industry.  The complaint alleges that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices, and to allocate markets and customers, in connection with the sale of polyester staple.  The action is brought on behalf of all persons who directly purchased polyester staple from defendants during the period September 1, 1999 through January 31, 2001.  For additional information, please contact Paul F. Bennett or Joseph M. Barton.

Peregrine Securities Litigation

The Firm is Lead Counsel representing plaintiffs in connection with their purchase or acquisition of Peregrine Systems, Inc. common stock.  This securities class action alleges, among other things, that more than $500 million of Peregrine’s reported revenue was improperly recognized by Peregrine on software licensing deals where GAAP requirements had not been met.  The action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Peregrine common stock between July 22, 1999 through May 3, 2002.  This action is also brought on behalf of all persons and entities who held Harbinger Corporation common stock or Remedy Corporation common stock and received Peregrine common stock in connection with mergers between each of those companies and Peregrine.  For additional information, please contact Solomon B. Cera or Gwendolyn R. Giblin.

Adelphia Securities Litigation

The Firm was retained by a well-known investment firm to recover damages in the Adelphia securities fraud case.   The action alleges that Adelphia's financial statements materially overstated revenues and earnings, thus causing the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased shares of Adelphia preferred stock during the period April 2, 2001 through and including March 27, 2002, including a subclass consisting of all persons and entities who purchased Adelphia's 7½% Mandatory Convertible Preferred Series E preferred stock ("Series E Preferred Stock") issued on or about November 15, 2001 (the "Series E Sub-Class").   For additional information, please contact Joseph M. Barton.

JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation

The Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a municipal pension fund against JDS Uniphase Corporation, alleging accounting violations and misstatements in SEC documents.  The action is brought on behalf of all persons who held the common stock of SDL, Inc. ("SDL"), and who exchanged their shares of SDL common stock for shares of common stock of JDS, in connection with the Amended Registration Statement and Proxy Statement-Prospectus filed with the SEC on November 17, 2000.  For additional information, please contact Joseph M. Barton.