Former American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. loan officers want a bankruptcy judge to let them alert thousands of other ex-employees that they may be entitled to collect from the failed company for allegedly overworking and underpaying them.

Court papers filed late Friday ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., to lift the shield that protects companies in Chapter 11 from lawsuits so American Home workers can be informed of their right to participate in a potential class-action lawsuit.

Those who left their jobs before American Home went under in August "may remain unaware that their employer engaged in illegal pay practices," say lawyers who filed the class action in California before American Home sought Chapter 11 protection.

Due to the bankruptcy filing, lawyers for American Home's suing loan officers need court approval to send out notices about the lawsuit, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They also need bankruptcy court approval to seek certification of class-action status for the case.

Officials of the liquidating Melville, N.Y.-based company weren't available to comment Monday.

Time could be running out for those entitled to join in the lawsuit, as a Jan. 11, 2008, claims-filing deadline looms in American Home's Chapter 11 case, according to the employee lawyers.

Plans are to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case on behalf of employees involved in the class action, which began in June. But if employees don't know about the class action and don't sign up, they won't be included in the bankruptcy claim.

The California class action alleges violations of federal labor law and state wage and hour laws for California, New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Jersey and Washington.

Long hours without overtime were an occupational hazard for loan officers in the heyday of home lending, if the lawsuits filed against mortgage companies are any indication.

New Century Financial Corp. of Irvine, Calif., and Atlanta's HomeBanc Mortgage Co., both of which filed bankruptcy this year, also have been accused in court of violating overtime pay laws.

"What they do is hire a bunch of people and tell them you must work 60, 70, 80 hours a week and they think because these people are paid on commission basis that they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act," said Marshall A. Adams, whose Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.-based firm Adams, Cassidy and Piccolo is handling the HomeBanc litigation.

In a press statement, the firm says, "UBS issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007. In the days following this announcement, the price of UBS stock declined to as low as $49.27 per share. Then, on December 10, 2007, UBS announced writedowns of around $10 billion as a result of its subprime mortgage related positions. Following this announcement, the price of UBS stock declined to $48.78 per share, a 26% decline from the Class Period high."

American Tower Corp. said Thursday that it will pay $14 million to settle a consolidated securities class action filed against the company in May 2006 that concerns its historical stock option granting practices and related accounting.

The broadcast and communications tower operator said that under the settlement, claims against the company will dismissed.

American Tower said it will continue to communicate with its insurers about the insurers' contribution to the settlement.

American Tower expects to report an income statement charge for the amount of the settlement, plus certain related legal fees and expenses.

Moriarty set aside 27.5 percent, or $15.8 million, for plaintiffs' legal fees, as well as an additional $2.2 million for plaintiff expenses.

Sprint Nextel, based in Reston, Va., but with operational headquarters in Overland Park, will pay $10 million of the settlement, with insurers paying the rest. The company has denied any wrongdoing, saying it settled the case to avoid continued legal costs.

Jay Eisenhofer, an attorney representing Dallas-based Carlson Capital LP, one of the lead plaintiffs, said he welcomed the outcome, especially as the case would have been heard in Sprint's hometown.

"The court recognized that Sprint's board did not live up to its fiduciary duties in the way it valued the company's tracking stocks to the detriment of common shareholders," Eisenhofer said.

The case came about after what was then Sprint Corp. decided to combine the two stocks that tracked the fortunes of its wireless and traditional wireline business divisions. Those stocks were divided in 1998 to reflect that the wireless division was just starting to grow and invest in wireless infrastructure while the business overseeing local and long-distance calls generated the bulk of the company's revenue.

By 2004, with most telecommunications companies selling bundles of wireless and land line services, Sprint officials decided to recombine the stocks, exchanging each of the wireless stock shares for half a share of the wireline stock.

Shareholders erupted, with half a dozen filing lawsuits claiming the company had shortchanged the value of the wireless stock and that company officials had manipulated the wireline business to the detriment of the wireless business.

The plaintiffs' attorneys hired experts who estimated the losses to shareholders ranged from $1.3 billion to $3.4 billion.

The settlement covers shareholders whose wireless shares were converted to combined shares on April 23, 2004, or who sold their wireless shares before that date and "were damaged thereby."

The proposal by City Attorney Rick Doyle states that "no claim may be filed on behalf of a class of persons unless verified by every member of that class."

Doyle said the new claims policy "is not really related to" the McManis claim or to class-actions in general. Instead, he said it's an attempt to help the city council better calculate the city's potential exposure to damages. Requiring all participants in a class-action to approve the claim filing, Doyle said, makes sense so that the city can determine in advance who has a valid claim.

McManis filed his claim on behalf of San Jose motorist Jorge Luis Ramirez and "others similarly situated." The claim says thousands of motorists paid fines ranging from $99 to $350 under the city's now-defunct Neighborhood Automated Speed Compliance Program, or NASCOP.

The program involved a city traffic engineer who sat in an unmarked van with a radar gun and digital cameras to snap speeding motorists as they drove past. The registered owner of the vehicle would then receive a ticket in the mail.

City officials saw the program as a way to curb speeding without further taxing San Jose's thinly stretched police force. The city sent 7,000 violation notices in 2006 alone.

The program also proved popular with many residents frustrated by speeding on neighborhood streets. City officials claimed the program reduced speeding 8 percent overall and cut the number of motorists who exceeded the posted limit by more than 10 mph by 62 percent.

But Police Chief Rob Davis and the city's transportation director in February advised the council to convert the program to a warning-only system, citing growing concerns that the tickets could not stand up in court. They noted that since the program was enacted, the state Legislature had declared that photo radar could not be used for speed enforcement.

Ramirez said he got two tickets for driving 28 mph and 30 mph in a 25 mph zone. He paid the fines but later was told by police officer friends that it is highly unusual to be ticketed for driving less than 5 mph over the posted limit.

Claims are a step toward filing a lawsuit against a government agency. The purpose is to give the government a chance to pay the claim without being dragged into court.

Peter Keane, a law professor at Golden Gate University, said Doyle's proposal "seems to go against the whole nature of what a class action suit is all about." He added that the purpose of such lawsuits is to appoint a representative for the entire class because it's virtually impossible to gather the whole group.

"Whether the courts would look at it as something the city can or cannot do, I just don't know," Keane said.