Under FRCP 23.1(a) and its state-law equivalents, a shareholder derivative suit isn't supposed to proceed unless the shareholders bringing the suit adequately represent the shareholders. If the suit is meant to profit the plaintiffs' lawyers at the expense of the corporation (and thus the shareholders), how can the bringers of a strike suit be adequate representatives of the shareholders? I've thus argued that the correct role for courts in such situations is to throw these cases out entirely (or approve the settlement but award only a token amount in attorneys' fees).Good coverage at Forbes.com (noting that the lawsuits themselves are free-ride piggybacking off of J&J self-disclosure and government investigations) and Reuters (quoting plaintiffs' lawyers calling the motion "frivolous").
Monday, September 10, 2012
In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Alison Frankel recently asked whether it's the end of "money-for-nothing" class actions; Ronald Barusch asks a similar question. The Center for Class Action Fairness is putting that question to the test in In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation by asking the District of New Jersey to dismiss shareholder litigation that makes cosmetic changes to corporate governance, and then presents a $10.45 million bill to shareholders—150% of the already high "lodestar"—for the involuntary consulting arrangement. As in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley, the suit "serves no goal other than to move money from the corporate treasury to the attorneys' coffers.... It is an abuse of the legal system to cram unnecessary litigation down the throats of firms ... and then use the high costs ... to extort settlements (including undeserved attorneys' fees) from the targets." As I noted then:
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Two July 31 wins for the Center
On July 31, district courts substantially reduced attorney fees in two class action settlements where Center for Class Action Fairness attorneys objected.
In the Nutella litigation in the District of New Jersey, Judge Wolfson agreed with our objection that the parties overstated the value of the injunctive relief, and reduced the fee award from $3,725,000 to $1,125,000. More discussion at Point of Law.
And in the remand of the Bluetooth class action settlement in the Central District of California, the court reduced the requested fee award from $850,000 to $282,729.05. The National Law Journal covered without asking me for a quote. The precision of the nickel seems a poor use of court resources, and demonstrates why we argue for recovery based on benefit to the class with lodestar to be used only as a cross-check ceiling. We also think that the court erred in failing to consider the substantial evidence that the injunctive relief was not only worthless but harmful to the class. But we're obviously less dissatisfied with a $282 thousand mistake than a $850 thousand mistake.
Unfortunately, both courts disagreed with us that the "kicker" provision in the settlement combined with the reversion to the defendant meant that the settlement was unfair because of the class attorneys' breach of fiduciary duty to the class, and granted settlement approval. We think this is legal error. When defendants are willing to put $6 million on the table complete a "clear sailing" clause to settle a lawsuit, but only have to pay a little more than half of that because of self-dealing by the class counsel, the unfairness to the class seems fairly clear to us. As the Ninth Circuit said in our Bluetooth win, there is "no apparent reason" for such a reversion. But the Center already has an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit addressing just this issue, so will likely forgo appeals here unless a cross-appeal is necessary.
Related: district court citing Bluetooth throws out $0 Fraley v. Facebook settlement.
In the Nutella litigation in the District of New Jersey, Judge Wolfson agreed with our objection that the parties overstated the value of the injunctive relief, and reduced the fee award from $3,725,000 to $1,125,000. More discussion at Point of Law.
And in the remand of the Bluetooth class action settlement in the Central District of California, the court reduced the requested fee award from $850,000 to $282,729.05. The National Law Journal covered without asking me for a quote. The precision of the nickel seems a poor use of court resources, and demonstrates why we argue for recovery based on benefit to the class with lodestar to be used only as a cross-check ceiling. We also think that the court erred in failing to consider the substantial evidence that the injunctive relief was not only worthless but harmful to the class. But we're obviously less dissatisfied with a $282 thousand mistake than a $850 thousand mistake.
Unfortunately, both courts disagreed with us that the "kicker" provision in the settlement combined with the reversion to the defendant meant that the settlement was unfair because of the class attorneys' breach of fiduciary duty to the class, and granted settlement approval. We think this is legal error. When defendants are willing to put $6 million on the table complete a "clear sailing" clause to settle a lawsuit, but only have to pay a little more than half of that because of self-dealing by the class counsel, the unfairness to the class seems fairly clear to us. As the Ninth Circuit said in our Bluetooth win, there is "no apparent reason" for such a reversion. But the Center already has an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit addressing just this issue, so will likely forgo appeals here unless a cross-appeal is necessary.
Related: district court citing Bluetooth throws out $0 Fraley v. Facebook settlement.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation
The Class Action Fairness Act puts limitations on coupon settlements. In In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, however, the district court approved a settlement that would pay $5.2 million in cash and $8.9 million in Walmart.com coupons to the class and held CAFA did not apply because the parties called the coupons "gift cards."
Does the Class Action Fairness Act regulate semantics or something more? I argue the latter in a Ninth Circuit opening brief filed today.
The district court also awarded a disproportionate $8.512 million to the attorneys. Our appeal addresses that issue as well. And because I miss Lionel Hutz, the brief cites the classic case of Homer Simpson v. The Frying Dutchman Restaurant.
The district court also awarded a disproportionate $8.512 million to the attorneys. Our appeal addresses that issue as well. And because I miss Lionel Hutz, the brief cites the classic case of Homer Simpson v. The Frying Dutchman Restaurant.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Groupon Marketing class action settlement
There was a lot of publicity about the "$8.5 million" Groupon will pay to settle a class action over expiration dates; several class members complained about the settlement to me, mostly because they viewed the lawsuit as silly. (So did Groupon, before their lawyers made them take down the original blog post criticizing the first of the many class actions brought against them.)
But the settlement is even worse than it looks. Before the settlement, if a Groupon customer had a problem with a Groupon, they contacted customer service, indicated dissatisfaction, and got a full cash refund.
After the settlement, if a Groupon customer has a problem with a Groupon that they purchased during the class period, they contact customer service, and customer service refers them to the class action settlement website, where they can fill out a claim form; after several months (and perhaps years), the class action settlement administrator will give the class member a pro rata share of the settlement fund—which, though the publicity says is $8.5 million, less than $6 million of it will be likely available to the class.
In other words, the class action attorneys have negotiated a settlement that makes their clients—who had suffered no damages because of the availability of refunds—worse off, and are asking for millions of dollars for their efforts.
I discovered this the hard way: I purchased a Groupon Voucher for a restaurant that closed, and tried to get my money back from Groupon. They told me to file a claim form. Fortunately, when I suggested that this was subpar customer service, they gave me a credit—which goes to show further that this is not a marginal benefit to the class of $8.5 million, but a change in accounting entries to rationalize a $2.125 million request for attorneys' fees.
Today I filed an objection. The case is In re: Groupon, Inc., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 3:11-md-2238-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal.), and the fairness hearing is scheduled for September 7. Lead class counsel is Robbins Geller.
Monday, July 9, 2012
In re Baby Products update
Briefing is complete, and oral argument will be some time in the second half of September. Details at Point of Law.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Next steps
Over the years, we have gotten lots of inquiries about objecting to bad shareholder derivative settlements. We'd largely passed, because we had high hopes for our pending case in the Seventh Circuit, and wanted to have that precedent in hand before we asked courts to recognize the issue of Rule 23.1 adequate representation. Now that we do, we are very interested in expanding our work objecting to bad shareholder derivative settlements. However, we face two barriers to entry that make objecting difficult.
First, the law has developed in a bad way so as to give very substandard notice to individual shareholders who hold their certificates through brokers. The settling parties typically wait until the last minute to notify brokers, asking them to comply with unrealistic deadlines, and the individual shareholders who work with Schwab or Merrill Lynch or the like don't get notice until a few days before the objection deadline, and sometimes after the objection deadline. That's often not enough time to investigate and handle the logistics of representation, especially if one needs to hire local counsel and request pro hac vice status. One of our long-term goals is to move the precedent in this area, but, until that happens, we need institutional-investor clients—hedge funds, pension funds—who get notice well in advance of objection deadlines and would like to work with us to end the problem of rent-seeking shareholder-derivative strike suits that hurt shareholders.
The second problem is that local-counsel requirement we just mentioned. I'm licensed in California, Illinois, D.C., and a couple of other federal courts that offer reciprocity, but many of these shareholder suits are in state courts or federal courts with burdensome local counsel requirements. (I also suspect we'll be seeing many fewer shareholder suits in Illinois federal courts as plaintiffs forum-shop.) Large law firms are frequently unwilling to represent us for conflicts reasons; many other firms don't want to alienate the powerful shareholder-plaintiffs' bar. We could very much use attorneys licensed in Delaware and D. Delaware to assist us. We'd obviously prefer pro bono help, but budget to pay reasonable fees for local counsel where necessary.
First, the law has developed in a bad way so as to give very substandard notice to individual shareholders who hold their certificates through brokers. The settling parties typically wait until the last minute to notify brokers, asking them to comply with unrealistic deadlines, and the individual shareholders who work with Schwab or Merrill Lynch or the like don't get notice until a few days before the objection deadline, and sometimes after the objection deadline. That's often not enough time to investigate and handle the logistics of representation, especially if one needs to hire local counsel and request pro hac vice status. One of our long-term goals is to move the precedent in this area, but, until that happens, we need institutional-investor clients—hedge funds, pension funds—who get notice well in advance of objection deadlines and would like to work with us to end the problem of rent-seeking shareholder-derivative strike suits that hurt shareholders.
The second problem is that local-counsel requirement we just mentioned. I'm licensed in California, Illinois, D.C., and a couple of other federal courts that offer reciprocity, but many of these shareholder suits are in state courts or federal courts with burdensome local counsel requirements. (I also suspect we'll be seeing many fewer shareholder suits in Illinois federal courts as plaintiffs forum-shop.) Large law firms are frequently unwilling to represent us for conflicts reasons; many other firms don't want to alienate the powerful shareholder-plaintiffs' bar. We could very much use attorneys licensed in Delaware and D. Delaware to assist us. We'd obviously prefer pro bono help, but budget to pay reasonable fees for local counsel where necessary.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Victory in the W.D. Washington: Classmates.com
When attorneys affiliated with CCAF first objected on behalf of Professor Michael Krauss in the Classmates.com settlement, that case paid $52,000 to class members and over a million dollars to the attorneys and the class representatives (while falsely characterizing it as a $9.5 million settlement); Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN called it the worst class action settlement of the year. We objected, and the court struck down the settlement. The parties went back to the drawing board without including us in the process, and they came back with a settlement that guaranteed $2.5 million for class members, while still paying the attorneys over a million dollars. The settlement, as we pointed out in a second objection, still overpaid the attorneys and had Bluetooth reversion problems to boot: any fee reduction, notwithstanding clear sailing, would go to the defendant rather than the class. The parties quickly eliminated the kicker: now any fee reduction would go to the class, and the judge agreed with us at the fairness hearing that there should be a fee reduction.
Given that we had won over $2 million for the class, we thought we might be entitled to a token fee award; given our non-profit status, we planned to ask for something in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, reflecting both the benefit to the class and a sub-lodestar amount for multiple rounds of briefing, two trips to Seattle for fairness hearings, and the cost of hiring local counsel. But before we even put pen to paper on the fee request briefing, class counsel retaliated against us for our success in objecting by hitting us with super-burdensome fishing-expedition subpoenas, on, inter alia, a conspiracy theory of cross-referencing our donors with donors to institutions where Professor Krauss had performed work, such that someone paid Cato ten years ago to have Krauss write a paper so that he would successfully object ten years later represented by attorneys affiliated with CCAF to a settlement of a lawsuit against a company that didn't even exist yet. (Dozens of class members contacted us about this bad settlement. As we were figuring out who would be the best objector, Professor Krauss contacted us, and we agreed to represent him within minutes because he taught legal ethics, which added a modicum of ethos to our objection.) We were already overextended with appellate briefing schedules, so we had a choice: we could spend tens of thousands of dollars on outside counsel to resist facially invalid subpoenas requiring a response over the Christmas holidays, and be faced with an additional discovery bill of tens of thousands of dollars if we lost (and thus be put in a position where we might be worse off for requesting fees) or drop the fee request rather than prejudice our other clients. Professor Krauss was generous enough to give us permission to drop the fee request, and we did so. But we asked the court to award sanctions against class counsel on behalf of the class for the abuse of the discovery process to deter future abuses against objectors.
The court did so, deducting $100,000 from the class counsel's fee request and awarding it to the class. So if you're keeping score, class counsel tried to abuse the discovery process to prevent us from collecting a $40,000 fee, and ended up costing themselves $100,000 (plus whatever attorney time they wasted having to defend themselves in the sanctions motion and on their own discovery) in the process. The class will get $2.753 million in cash instead of $0.052 million in cash. The opinion by Judge Richard Jones generously praises us for being the attorneys most interested in class recovery. Congratulations to our patient client, Professor Krauss, and to attorney Dan Greenberg, who argued at the second fairness hearing.
Given that we had won over $2 million for the class, we thought we might be entitled to a token fee award; given our non-profit status, we planned to ask for something in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, reflecting both the benefit to the class and a sub-lodestar amount for multiple rounds of briefing, two trips to Seattle for fairness hearings, and the cost of hiring local counsel. But before we even put pen to paper on the fee request briefing, class counsel retaliated against us for our success in objecting by hitting us with super-burdensome fishing-expedition subpoenas, on, inter alia, a conspiracy theory of cross-referencing our donors with donors to institutions where Professor Krauss had performed work, such that someone paid Cato ten years ago to have Krauss write a paper so that he would successfully object ten years later represented by attorneys affiliated with CCAF to a settlement of a lawsuit against a company that didn't even exist yet. (Dozens of class members contacted us about this bad settlement. As we were figuring out who would be the best objector, Professor Krauss contacted us, and we agreed to represent him within minutes because he taught legal ethics, which added a modicum of ethos to our objection.) We were already overextended with appellate briefing schedules, so we had a choice: we could spend tens of thousands of dollars on outside counsel to resist facially invalid subpoenas requiring a response over the Christmas holidays, and be faced with an additional discovery bill of tens of thousands of dollars if we lost (and thus be put in a position where we might be worse off for requesting fees) or drop the fee request rather than prejudice our other clients. Professor Krauss was generous enough to give us permission to drop the fee request, and we did so. But we asked the court to award sanctions against class counsel on behalf of the class for the abuse of the discovery process to deter future abuses against objectors.
The court did so, deducting $100,000 from the class counsel's fee request and awarding it to the class. So if you're keeping score, class counsel tried to abuse the discovery process to prevent us from collecting a $40,000 fee, and ended up costing themselves $100,000 (plus whatever attorney time they wasted having to defend themselves in the sanctions motion and on their own discovery) in the process. The class will get $2.753 million in cash instead of $0.052 million in cash. The opinion by Judge Richard Jones generously praises us for being the attorneys most interested in class recovery. Congratulations to our patient client, Professor Krauss, and to attorney Dan Greenberg, who argued at the second fairness hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
