Go to main navigation
2700 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Birmingham, Alabama 35242
205-314-4874 205-314-4874

Reported Cases

Blake v. American Family Care, Inc., 599 So. 2d 5 (Ala. 1992) (represented plaintiff/counterdefendant).

Denson, et al. v. Bear, Stearns, et al., 682 So.2d 69 (Ala. 1996) (represented broker/dealer defendant/appellee; holding established that broker/dealer may rescind a securities sale to an Alabama resident where the security was not registered in Alabama).

Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Durrett, 746 So.2d 316 (Ala. 1999) (represented plaintiff/ appellee in antitrust case).

Money in a Flash Check Advance, LLC v. Wright, 795 So. 2d 629 (Ala. 2000) (represented appellee plaintiff in payday lending case).

Alabama Catalog Sales v. Harris, 794 So. 2d 312 (Ala. 2000) (represented amicus curia Alabama Arise).

Ex Parte Warrior Lighthouse, Inc., 789 So.2d 858 (Ala. 2001) (represented plaintiff in petition for writ of mandamus; writ granted).

Freeman v. DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co., 790 So. 2d 248 (Ala. 2001) (represented appellant plaintiff in antitrust action).

Leonard v. Terminix International Co., L.P.
, 854 So. 2d 529 (Ala. 2002) (represented amicus curia Alabama Arise).

J.C. Bradford & Co., L.L.C. v. Vick, 837 So.2d 271 (Ala. 2002) (represented registered representative defendant appellant).

Anders v. Hometown Mortgage Services, Inc., 346 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2003) (represented plaintiff/appellant).

Austin v. Alabama Checkcashers Association, 936 So. 2d 1014 (Ala. 2005) (represented amicus curia Alabama Arise).

 

Class and Derivative Actions

 In re America Online Spin-Off Accounts Litigation, MDL 1581 (United States District Court for the Central District of California). Settled. Mr. Gregory counsel for plaintiff in Spencer v. America Online, Inc., transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Nationwide class action on behalf of persons allegedly double-charged for internet services.

    In re Healthsouth Derivative Litigation (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama; Delaware Chancery Court). Pending only for collection purposes. Coordinated derivative actions against former management and other defendants; Mr. Gregory appointed liaison counsel for derivative plaintiffs.  Summary judgment awarded in Delaware Chancery Court to derivative plaintiff and against defendant Richard M. Scrushy regarding “buyback” of loan from Company; affirmed on appeal to Delaware Supreme Court. See “Delaware Court Orders Healthsouth ex-CEO to pay Co. $25 M,” The Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2004.  Summary judgment awarded in Jefferson County Circuit Court against Defendant Scrushy with regard to paid but unearned bonuses, and affirmed on appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. See Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So. 2d 988 (Ala. 2006). Plaintiffs settled with officers and directors who were not criminally charged.  Plaintiffs achieved $2.87 billion judgment in trial against Richard M. Scrushy.

   Fowler, et al. v. City of Tuscaloosa, Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, Case No. CV-2003-1572.  Settled. Class action on behalf of 19 and 20-year-old citizens ticketed under city’s “Minor in Lounge” ordinance.  Plaintiffs alleged the ordinance violated Alabama law and Alabama Constitution of 1901.  Under settlement, class members’ convictions will be expunged.

    Standifer v. Franklin Collection Services, Inc., United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, CASE NO. CV02-HGD-0446-W.  Settled. Class action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Truth in Lending Act on behalf of persons who entered into debt consolidation agreements with defendant wherein the agreements violated the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226 et seq., by failing to correctly disclose amount financed, failing to itemize amount financed, failing to correctly disclose finance charge, and/or failing to disclose APR. 

     Brown v. Creditline, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.) (settled) (counsel for nationwide class of customers of “credit repair” service in which plaintiffs allege, inter alia, violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act).

     Little v. Debtco, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.) (settled) (Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act and unlicensed practice of law).

     Orlando’s Bakery and Ingredients for Bakers v. Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients, GmbH; and Eastman Chemical Company (Chancery Court, Davidson County, Tennessee) (settled). Counsel in price-fixing class action against manufacturers of sorbates, a class of chemical food preservatives, on behalf of food preparation companies and other users of sorbates. See companion criminal antitrust case, United States of America v. Eastman Chemical Company, No. CR 98-00302-SI (N.D. Ca. 1998).

     Middle Tennessee Teamsters Trust Fund and Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (Chancery Court, Davidson County, Tennessee, Case No. 98-3833-II). Counsel for nationwide class of third-party payors in monopolization case against major generic drug maker and co-conspirators. Settled. See related article: “Mylan Labs May Face Antitrust Charges Over Price Increases on Generic Drugs”, The Wall Street Journal, December 7, 1998.

    Wilson v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc. (Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama) (class counsel for class of Alabama purchasers of toy products; plaintiffs alleged vertical monopolization horizontal conspiracy to create monopoly and artificially raise prices to class members) (case settled as part of nationwide mediated settlement). See related articles: “Agency Hits Retailer’s Tactics With Suppliers,” The Washington Post, May 23, 1996; “Toys ‘R’ Us Inc. Warned Manufacturers on Sales to Warehouse Club Discounters,” The Wall Street Journal, March 6, 1997; “Hearing Begins on Restraint of Trade in Toy Industry,” The New York Times, March 6, 1997.

     Hynes v. The Enstar Group, Inc., Richard Grassgreen et al., CV 90-T-1294-N
 (M.D. Ala.) (Securuties) (Class action filed on behalf of purchasers of publicly sold Enstar stock alleging the stock price was artificially inflated as a result of defendants’ failure to disclose
 kickbacks from Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., and Michael Milken given to officers of the company to induce them to purchase for Enstar junk bonds underwritten by Drexel, which thereby would create the appearance of a market in such bonds and permit Drexel and Milken to manipulate the price of such bonds; see numerous published articles re same; settled for over $19 million).

     Ayers v. Sutliffe (First Humanics litigation), C.1-90-650 and Randolph County Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Sutliffe, (S.D. Ohio) (Securities) (21 plaintiff class actions brought on behalf of approximately 4,000 purchasers of 21 separate municipal bonds issued over a 3-1/2 year period to finance the acquisition of 21 existing nursing homes; jury verdict against Deloitte & Touche accounting firm and other defendants after seven week trial for twelve counts each of securities fraud, RICO and common law fraud; one of the first cases in the United States to use novel “paperless trial” techniques to display all documentary exhibits, all deposition transcripts, and all videotaped testimony and evidence, on computers and large screens throughout the courtroom; settled after the Deloitte & Touche trial with all defendants, including Price Waterhouse, for over $46 million; See published opinions at Randolph County Federal S&L v. Sutliffe, [Current Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. ¶ 96,548 (S.D. Ohio 1991) and Ayers v. Sutliffe, [Current Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. ¶ 96,552 (S.D. Ohio 1992); See “Reach for the Sky,” Forbes, (August 17, 1992). See also numerous articles reported in the Kansas City Business Journal and The Bond Buyer; see also related magazine article, “Money Helps,” Money April 1992).

     Morton v. Cyber Services, Technology, L.L.C. (Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama)(pending) (counsel for class of customers of “payday loan” businesses in Tuscaloosa County) (arbitration ruling allowing class arbitration to proceed on appeal to Alabama Supreme Court).

     Higginbotham v. Cash4U.net, LLC (Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama) (settled) (counsel for class of customers of “payday loan” businesses in Tuscaloosa County).
 Wright, et al. v. Cash King, Inc., et al., (Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama)(settled) (counsel for class of customers of “payday loan” businesses in Tuscaloosa County) CV-1999-418.

    Colburn v. Alternative Financial Solutions, Inc., et al., (Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama) (counsel for class of customers of “payday loan” businesses in Tuscaloosa County; settled) CV-2000-1309.

    Carter, et al. v. ICR Services, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.) (settled) (counsel for certified nationwide class of customers of “credit repair” service in which plaintiffs allege, inter alia, violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act).

    Kernop, et al. v. Fisher Price, Inc., CV 98-C-2700-W, Northern District of Alabama. Co-counsel for plaintiffs in pending products liability class action on behalf of class of consumer purchasers of Power Wheels toys (settled).  See related articles: “Fire Hazard Spurs Recall of Millions of Ride-on Toys,” The Washington Post, October 22, 1998; “Mattel to Recall Power Wheel Toys; Charge Pulls Down Earnings by 8.8%”, The Wall Street Journal, October 23, 1998.

     Dice v. America Online, Inc., CV 97-C-0146-W (N.D. Ala.) (Consumer fraud)      (settled consumer action for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract). See related articles: “America Online Failed to Publicize Access Option,” The New York Times, February 10, 1997; “New York Threatens to Sue America Online,” The New York Times, January 25, 1997; “Many Users Not Satisfied With AOL’s Contrition,” January 31, 1997; “Heaviest AOL Users Are Left in Cold by Refund Settlement,” The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 1997; “AOL Hit With More Class-Action Suits,” The New York Times, January 16, 1997.