After a trial lasting for more than three months, a jury deliberating for over two weeks in the class action case against Vivendi rendered its verdict on January 29, 2010 favoring the plaintiffs and awarding damages to the injured shareholders in the class that may be in the billions of dollars.

The specifics of the verdict are: Vivendi was found to have acted recklessly as to each of the 57 charges that it made materially false and misleading statements. The individual defendants, Jean- Marie Messier and Guillaume Hannezo, were found not liable by the jury. Damages were awarded but it is not immediately clear exactly how much money the class will recover, as that will most likely depend on a claims process and post-trial motions.

The trial resolves the claims of the shareholders who remained members of the class. Earlier in the litigation, the presiding judge, Richard J. Holwell in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, excluded from the class all shareholders residing in places other than the United States, France, England and the Netherlands.

Labaton Sucharow LLP represents institutional investors located in Canada, France, Ireland and Italy and other countries who, having purchased Vivendi stock or American Depository Shares during the relevant period, have either opted out of or been excluded from the Vivendi class action. The claims of these institutional investors, adjourned pending the outcome of the class action trial, are essentially the same as those that were the subject of the jury verdict.

The verdict in the class action trial may well have a favorable impact on the individual claims of the institutional plaintiffs. However, Vivendi intends to file motions attacking the verdict and the defendants still have their challenges to some of the institutional claims on the basis of standing and reliance. And, there is always the complication that could arise should the Vivendi choose to appeal the jury verdict. An appeal and these further court proceedings may delay final resolution of Class' claims. As a result the individual institutional claims are now somewhat dependent on further proceedings of the class case.