Here is some dirt on Robbins Umeda...the latest "law firm" that announced earlier they are doing an "investigation"..gives you a little perspective on what parasitic scum these guys all are...
Judge to California lawyers: Don't come back
RALEIGH - North Carolina public companies have one less law firm to worry about when it comes to shareholder lawsuits filed in the state.
North Carolina Business Court Judge Ben Tennille has barred the San Diego, Calif., firm of Robbins Umeda & Fink from practicing in the state for five years on a pro hac vice basis. The Latin phrase, which means "this time only," allows an out-of-state lawyer to appear in court for a particular trial even though the lawyer isn't licensed in that state.
The order came as something of a coda to a shareholder lawsuit, Egelhof v. Szulik, filed on behalf of a former Red Hat shareholder against members of the technology company's officers and board of directors.
Shareholder lawsuits are the bane of many public corporations since there are a host of law firms that specialize in filing them on word of bad news from a company.
In 2004, Robbins Umeda & Fink represented a plaintiff in a shareholders derivative case involving Chapel Hill-based Pozen. That lawsuit was dismissed in November 2005.
Press Millen, a Womble Carlyle attorney who helped defend Red Hat's management in the Egelhof v. Szulik case, hopes the victory his side scored will have a positive impact for corporations beyond the case.
"I think it's pretty serious," Millen says of the sanctions. "It's definitely a warning shot over the bow of out-of-state counsels about filing meritless lawsuits in North Carolina."
Sanctions against plaintiff
The order, which was issued Feb. 4, prohibits Robbins Umeda & Fink's lawyers from appearing in the state's courts for five years. It also bars Andrew Egelhof, the plaintiff in the case, from acting as a shareholder derivative plaintiff or a class-action representative in North Carolina litigation for five years.
The Egelhof v. Szulik complaint, which originally was filed in Wake County Superior Court in 2004, included allegations of insider trading and gross mismanagement at Red Hat. Defendants included Red Hat Chairman Matthew Szulik and board members Marye Anne Fox, former chancellor of North Carolina State University, and retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton.
Tennille dismissed the plaintiff's claims in March 2006 due in part to Egelhof's loss of standing as a stockholder. The defendants later asked that they be awarded attorneys' fees. Though that motion was not granted, it prompted Tennille to examine actions taken by the plaintiff and the law firm.
Tennille asserts that the lawsuit was filed in a "needless rush to court" just 31 days after Red Hat restated its earnings on July 19, 2004. He wrote in his order that the case was filed without an inspection of the company's books and records, and many of the allegations relied on media reports and published analyst opinions.
Tennille also took exception to Egelhof being the fiduciary standard bearer. According to court documents, Egelhof was a 24-year-old Kansas resident when he responded to an Internet solicitation seeking a plaintiff.
While he had a degree in business administration, Egelhof had worked in information technology jobs at Kansas State University. His holdings in Red Hat amounted to 28 shares of stock worth $710.50 that he bought in 2004.
"In short, he lacked any credentials to act as a fiduciary for a company in multimillion dollar litigation," Tennille wrote in his order. "The (law) firm should have been aware of his holdings and inexperience." Stock no longer held
Egelhof and his representatives at Robbins Umeda & Fink failed to communicate with each other about the case to such an extent that one of the plaintiff's lawyers who appeared before the court "knew absolutely nothing about his client," wrote Tennille.
After being asked by the judge to determine their client's Red Hat holdings, Robbins Umeda & Fink representatives eventually found out that Egelhof had sold his shares of Red Hat stock for $756.98 on Dec. 31, 2005.
Shareholder derivative actions and class-action lawsuits often are settled because they are expensive to defend. But Raleigh-based Red Hat, which was founded in 1993 and employs about 2,000 people, decided to take a stand against what it considered inappropriate legal conduct.
"When it does occur, we don't shy away from taking it on," says Red Hat General Counsel Michael Cunningham.
Neither Cunningham nor Millen would disclose how much it cost to fend off the lawsuit. Local business lawyer Larry Robbins, who is not involved in the case, estimates that such an action could cost defendants in the range of $250,000 to $500,000.
While Millen and Cunningham hope that the case will help discourage shareholder suits, UNC business law professor Tom Hazen views it simply as the court's reaction to the performance of the lawyers involved.
"I would imagine that it must have been pretty bad for him (Tennille) to react this way," Hazen says. "It certainly is a serious slap in the face to their firm."
In addition to the sanctions on Robbins Umeda & Fink, Tennille specifically prohibited three of the firm's lawyers from appearing pro hac vice in North Carolina for five years. Managing Partner Brian Robbins said, " ... we plan on appealing that decision."
Charlotte attorney Lane Williamson, who acted as local counsel for Egelhof, did not return messages seeking comment. Williamson was not sanctioned in the judge's order.
The class action against Walmart for gender discrimination and another for unpaid work on breaks and after hours (at smaller non-24 hour stores) with the doors locked are sometimes seen as rare examples where share price even of a behemoth company has been, according to some, affected by a class action. It's very rare, you are right.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
