A. Selected Jury Trials:

Tenet Healthcare Corporation. Seth and his O’Melveny team prevailed at trial on behalf of Tenet in a $19 million breach of contract lawsuit filed by two cofounders of the company. The plaintiffs, who claimed that they were cheated out of millions in stock options, originally sued for $30 million and asserted the right to exercise “fully exercisable” company stock options over a 10-year period. Seth and his O’Melveny team argued that the stock options had expired in 1996 and that the phrase “fully exercisable” did not determine the length of the option period. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defense, which was praised by the Daily Journal as one of the “Top Ten Defense Verdicts of 2002.” The verdict was subsequently affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.

In Re: AST Computers Securities Litigation. Seth was trial counsel in the successful defense of AST in a rare securities class action that proceeded to a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

IBM. Seth served as lead trial counsel for IBM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against computer dealers, distributors, former IBM employees, and others for RICO violations and fraud, resulting in a successful jury verdict and judgments exceeding $17 million, upheld by the 9th Circuit.

B. Recent Securities Victories:

La Senza Corp. On August 31, 2007, Seth and his team achieved a significant victory for clients La Senza Corp (the second largest international lingerie retailer and formerly the largest Wet Seal shareholder) and two former Wet Seal directors when United States District Judge Gary Feess dismissed a securities fraud case as a matter of law, with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but subsequently dismissed their appeal with prejudice in March 2008.

Watson Pharmaceuticals. On August 16, 2007, Seth and his team won a victory for Watson in a private securities class action appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was brought by public pension funds represented by Coughlin Stoia, which had lost the contest in the district court to be appointed lead plaintiff. After O’Melveny successfully moved to dismiss the complaint filed by the lead plaintiff selected by the court, the lead plaintiff elected not to amend and requested that the action be dismissed. The pension funds then filed an appeal challenging the earlier lead plaintiff decision. Seth successfully argued that the pension funds lacked standing to appeal as they had never filed their own complaint nor intervened in the pending action.

Diagnostic Products Corporation. On January 31, 2007, Seth and his team obtained a dismissal of shareholder class and derivative claims against the directors and officers of Diagnostic Products Corporation. The District Court granted our motion to dismiss, ruling that the derivative claims were barred for lack of demand and that the class claims were barred by the California Corporations Code, which provides an exclusive appraisal remedy for dissenting shareholders. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit from the order of dismissal. On September 10, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal with prejudice.

Vitesse Semiconductor, Inc. In March of 2006, allegations of stock options backdating were brought against O’Melveny client Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation. After a special committee investigation, Vitesse fired its former management, auditor, and outside counsel. NASDAQ delisted the company’s stock, which had traded at over $100 per share before the burst of the telecommunications bubble and now trades at less than $1 per share. Seth and his team negotiated a settlement in this highly publicized scandal. All federal securities class action claims that were filed against Vitesse and all related federal and state shareholder derivative actions were settled, without Vitesse making any monetary contribution to the settlement.

Mesri v. Morgan Stanley. Seth secured a very favorable win for Morgan Stanley in a securities class action filed in California over sale of structured notes. In January 2008, less than four months after plaintiffs’ filed their initial complaint, they withdrew their complaint after reading Seth’s dismissal papers.

In re Skechers Securities Litigation. Following Seth’s successful motion to dismiss of a securities class action filed against Skechers by Coughlin Stoia, plaintiffs appealed the Central District of California ruling. In November 2007, Seth argued the appeal on behalf of Skechers before the Ninth Circuit. We are awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit.

Lockheed Martin Corp. After six years of motion practice and an appeal, in 2005 we won dismissal of a federal court securities class action against Lockheed Martin Corporation and six of its officers and directors: In re Lockheed Martin Securities Litigation, 272 F. Supp. 2nd 938 (C.D. Cal. 2003); aff’d, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 93,124 (9th Cir. 2005). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had artificially inflated Lockheed’s share price during the class period by making false or misleading statements about anticipated earnings. We persuaded the district court that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed dismissal. We also successfully defended Lockheed Martin in a second securities class action with a later class period, which was dismissed and not appealed.

Fannie Mae and its Board of Directors. In May 2007, in a sweeping victory for Fannie Mae and its Board of Directors, an O’Melveny team of securities litigators convinced the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to make a pre-suit demand. The case involved a series of consolidated derivative suits brought by several institutional investors, with Coughlin Stoia serving as lead plaintiffs’ counsel. The District Court dismissed the action for failure to make a demand.

Fannie Mae and its Board of Directors. In August 2007, in another major victory for Fannie Mae and its Board of Directors, O’Melveny persuaded the District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the vast majority of claims asserted in two opt-out cases brought by institutional mutual fund investors. The opt-out cases asserted a litany claims, including federal claims for securities fraud; liability for misleading statements and insider trading; and state claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, and conspiracy.