 |
|
|
|
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP was founded to offer a unique model
that maximizes recoveries for our clients in class action and
individual litigation. We have thirty years combined experience
representing plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of litigation
matters including securities, antitrust, corporate governance,
consumer, commercial, Title VII, trespass, constitutional, and wage and
hour actions. Our aim, in every case we undertake, is to aggressively
prosecute the action, determine the weaknesses in the defense, and
exploit those weaknesses to the fullest. We conduct discovery with a
complete focus on obtaining the admissible evidence necessary to
present the case and prevail at trial. In our experience, this focused
and dogged approach yields the best recovery.
We will not recommend that our clients accept low-ball early settlement
offers. We recognize that discovery can substantially alter a
defendants’ early view of the value of a case. From the moment we
initiate litigation, we prepare the case as if it will culminate in a
trial on the merits. A trial notebook is prepared – providing a
tactical roadmap for prosecuting the case. The trial notebook is
continually updated as discovery proceeds and the case strategy is
adapted to the facts and the law. If a settlement offer is made, we will fully discuss the offer and the prospects for achieving an acceptable result with our client. We believe that educated and well-informed clients are an asset and will involve our clients in all strategic decisions.
KO&L believes in the partnership between attorney and clients
created by contingency fee litigation. We have found that where the
attorneys and clients have the same incentive to maximize the recovery,
the optimal result is obtained. Depending on the type of case and risk
profile, we are prepared to find the appropriate contingent arrangement
that will ensure that the right partnership is established.
Our partners will prosecute every case we agree to undertake. This
hands-on approach assures that cases are prosecuted efficiently and
aggressively every step of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of KO&L's Notable Decisions
- Francis v. A&E Stores, Inc., 06 Civ. 1638, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49971, June 26, 2008.
- Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., 04 Civ. 8819, 06 Civ. 2295, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41650, May 27, 2008.
- Bowens v. Atl. Maint. Corp., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 546 F. Supp. 2d 55; April 23, 2008.
- Perez v Rent-A-Center, Inc., NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, 186 N.J. 188, 892 A.2d 1255; March 15, 2006.
- In re Infosonics Corporation Securities Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57784 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2007)
- CompuDyne Corporation v. Shane, 453 F. Supp.2d 807 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
- Tracinda
Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG (In re DaimlerChrysler AG Sec. Litig.),
Civil Action No. 00-993/00-984/01-004-JJF CONSOLIDATED ACTION, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, June 25, 2003
- Tracinda
Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG (In re DaimlerChrysler AG Sec. Litig.),
Civil Action No. 00-993/00-984/01-004-JJF CONSOLIDATED ACTION, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, June 11, 2003
- In
re Eaton Vance Corp. Secs. Litig., CIVIL ACTION NO.: 01-10911-EFH,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 206 F.
Supp. 2d 142; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 937, June 11, 2002
- In
re Indep. Energy Holdings PLC, Sec. Litig., Master File No. 00 Civ.
6689 (SAS), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK, 210 F.R.D. 476; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 920, May 28,
2002
- Tracinda Corp. v.
DaimlerChrysler AG (In re DaimlerChrysler AG Sec. Litig.), Civil Action
No. 00-993/00-984/01-004-JJF CONSOLIDATED ACTION, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, 200 F. Supp. 2d 439; Fed.
Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 904, May 8, 2002
- In
re Ashworth, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99cv0121 L (JAH), Order
Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants'Mmotion to Dismiss
(S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2001)
- In re
Indep. Energy Holdings PLC Sec. Litig., Master File 00 Civ. 6689 (SAS),
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 154
F. Supp. 2d 741; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 484, July 26, 2001
- Hollin
v. Scholastic Corp. (In re Scholastic Corp. Sec. Litig.), Docket No.
00-7517, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 252
F.3d 63; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91, 455, June 1, 2001
- In
re SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Sec. Litig., Multi-District Litigation
CASE NO. 00-1315, USDC S.D. Ohio Case No. C2-98-814, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 124
F. Supp. 2d 527; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P91,275, November 1, 2000
- In
re Datastream Sys., C/A No. 6:99-0088-13, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, GREENVILLE DIVISION, 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1468, January 31, 2000
|
|
