Victory in the Seventh Circuit

As both Daniel Fisher and the Economist documented recently, the percentage of M&A transactions worth over $500 million that result in shareholder derivative suits has risen from 39% to 96%. [Fisher; Economist; Reuters (quoting me); OL; see also Johnson @ SSRN]

It's surely not the case that every merger is the result of a breach of fiduciary duty. What's happening is that entrepreneurial lawyers have discovered a profitable means of rent-seeking: with the help of a cooperative shareholder, bring a meritless shareholder derivative suit on some technical ground or the other, threaten to impose millions of dollars of discovery expenses and hassle on the officers and directors of the company, and collect an attorneys' fee for settling the case for a token change of no benefit to the shareholders. As I told Reuters in 2011, "Judges should consider whether these provisions actually create value for shareholders, or amount to a rearranging of the deck chairs to create the illusion of value to justify attorneys' fees."

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).

I found myself the "beneficiary" of one of these $0 strike-suit settlements in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley; the settlement would have paid the attorneys $925,000 under a clear-sailing clause, and, when the district court rejected my attempt to intervene to dismiss the suit, I appealed to the Seventh Circuit. 

Yesterday, I won a complete victory with a landmark Frank Easterbrook opinion that I hope will provide protection for shareholders against future shareholder derivative strike suits. The suit, the Court said, "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." It thus reversed the district court's denial of my motion to intervene, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case, as I had asked below. [Reuters; Fisher @ Forbes; analysis by Wolfman; WSJ Law Blog (failing to recognize that the case involves a lawyer they profiled in October); Bashman; Overlawyered; Litigation Daily ($) ("Ted Frank, the indefatigable scourge of underwhelming class action settlements, scored a remarkable win on Wednesday"); Volokh on a punctuational quirk] 

This is the fifth federal appellate opinion in a CCAF case; CCAF is now 4-1 in federal appeals, which is remarkable, given that CCAF-affiliated attorneys represent the appellant in each case and there are rarely as many as four reversals of class action settlement-related district court opinions in a single year from all objectors combined.

CCAF is assisting an objector in a Texas-state-court strike suit currently on appeal, and we hope to extend this precedent to other state courts. The main difficulty we face is that individual investors rarely get adequate notice of these bad settlements: courts condone notice provisions that virtually guarantee that an investor who uses a broker will not get notice in time to file an objection. (In the Sears case, I benefited because of a rare agreement to extend notice at the district court level.) We would like to work with institutional investors to promote this precedent and put an end to the practice of rent-seeking strike suits that hurt shareholders. Please contact me if this describes and interests you.

May update

• A disappointing loss in Cobell v. Salazar, the first time I lost a federal appeal I've argued. We're still evaluating our options. Lots of links and analysis at Point of Law.
• Briefing and oral argument in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley. I'm looking forward to the Seventh Circuit opinion.
• Odd shenanigans in Brazil v. Dell: see Point of Law; Reuters coverage; Reuters follow-up coverage.
• We completed Sixth Circuit briefing in the Pampers Dry Max case, and will discuss in a future post.
• The district court approved the Costco "hot fuel" settlement, though it at least refused to credit the junk economics expert; several other defendants are settling, and, if they're similar settlements where the benefits go entirely to the class counsel, we'll file objections there, too. Some objectors have appealed; we don't believe there's appellate jurisdiction yet. 

Two important appellate briefs filed this week

• Shareholder derivative suits present interesting conflicts of interest. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of shareholders, but when the case settles, the corporate defendant—i.e., the plaintiff shareholders—are the ones paying the bill. Thus, if the suit does not actually extract any wealth from directors or officers for their supposed breaches of duty, shareholders are frequently worse off. This is the case in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley, a derivative suit against Sears Holding Corp. where the alleged breach was failure to recognize the risk of Clayton Act litigation. The irony, of course, is that the actual shareholder derivative suit is far more expensive than the possibility of Clayton Act litigation. I objected; the posture is muddied by some procedural issues relating to the Seventh Circuit's intervention requirement, as you can see, but the fundamental point—shareholder derivative suits should not be permitted to be maintained when they are designed to benefit the attorneys, rather than the shareholders—remains valid, and we believe this is the first case to present this principle in the shareholder derivative context. The case is No. 10-3285, Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley (7th Cir.).
• Claims-made settlements are the successor to coupon settlements in structuring settlements to divert the lion's share of relief to the attorneys, rather than the class. The parties typically structure a claims process that will reward less than a tenth of the class (in this case, less than 3% of the class), hide the claims rate from the lower court by scheduling the fairness hearing well before the claims deadline (though that evasion didn't happen in this case), and then ask for attorneys' fees on the illusion that the entire class got relief. Thus, we have cases like Brazil v. Dell, where the class got less than $500,000, but the attorneys received $7 million. We think that is per se unfair, and have asked the Ninth Circuit to weigh in. The case is No. 11-17799, Brazil v. Dell (9th Cir.).

Some case updates

• In Lonardo v. Travelers Insurance, our objection resulted in a $2 million improvement in the settlement. We maintained the objection, and the court approved the settlement; we straightforwardly acknowledged that the court "could" approve the improved settlement (where the attorneys got nearly as much as the class as opposed to more than twice as much) under its discretionary powers, but "shouldn't," and the court found that offensive for some reason. To add insult to injury, the court preemptively made findings that we weren't entitled to even ask for attorneys' fees for our role in improving the settlement. On a motion to reconsider, the court begrudgingly awarded attorneys' fees, and then proceeded to come up with bad dicta that suggests that objectors are obligated to engage in expensive discovery about settlement negotiations before they are completed. (The scenario where a settlement is improved by 71% on the eve of the fairness hearing is rare enough that one hopes that does not matter; it's pretty clear that settling parties would object to the discovery that would produce the evidence that the Lonardo court says is required.) The $40,000 in fees is nice, but it was unfortunate that the court felt the need to insult us along the way; we made it clear that there was substantial work we performed on the case for which we were not seeking fees, and the court repeatedly implied that the only thing we did were the few dozen hours we requested fees for. We did get the court to acknowledge that Perdue v. Kenny A. applies to class-action attorney-fee requests (though that does not explain why the court awarded a 1.4 multiplier to the plaintiffs' attorneys). If those opinions were issued today, when we have a diversified donor base, we would have appealed. At the time, we were low on funds, and had to make a triage decision to save our powder for more egregiously bad decisions. Judging by Google hits, class members have started to receive their checks, which are 71% larger than they would have been without our objection.
  
• In the Sears case, the court denied our motion to dismiss and our motion to intervene, the latter because we sought to appeal, and therefore were "obstructive." That reasoning begs the question when one is entitled to move to intervene for purposes of appeal; the court did not cite the leading Seventh Circuit case on the issue. We will appeal: we believe Devlin gives us standing to do so, and, in any event, the denial of the motion to intervene was clearly erroneous. I am excited about this appeal, as it will give the Seventh Circuit the chance to clarify the law of derivative shareholder lawsuits and whether it is appropriate to bring them for the primary purpose of extracting attorneys' fees.
  
• I'm also enthused about our chances in the Dewey v. Volkswagen appeal to the Third Circuit. The plaintiffs have requested a punitive appeal bond, and the district court will rule on that in October. I'll have a post about that later in the week.
  
• Alas, I will not be participating in another appeal I was confident about, the Ninth Circuit Yahoo! appeal.  As you know, the Center for Class Action Fairness refuses to settle a class action objection unless the withdrawal of the objection results in a settlement that is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Our clients disagreed with that approach, and we have withdrawn as counsel. We did not ask for and will not accept any fees in that representation.

One more Sears brief

Plaintiffs and defendants filed three briefs Tuesday and Wednesday before the Friday fairness hearing in the Sears Holding derivative action. And I had a plane to Baton Rouge to catch at 6 am Thursday. So I got to relive my Stakhanovite days at a law firm by writing a brief in response to the one I received at 5 pm on Wednesday in the limited time I had available.  Apologies for the typo on page 3, and thanks to the students and professors at LSU Law for their hospitality.

Update on Sears Holding Corp. derivative shareholder suit

Plaintiffs filed an opposition; I filed a reply. The hearing has been moved from today to September 10, 9:30 AM.

Against derivative shareholder strike suits: Sears Holding Corporation, Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley

In the 1998 case of Felzen v. Andreas, the Seventh Circuit suggested that it was looking for an opportunity to take action against derivative shareholder strike suits, suits where a shareholder purportedly sues on behalf of the corporation, but in reality is seeking legal extortion to drop the suit:

Rule 23.1 provides for notice to shareholders only in the event of dismissal or settlement, so that other investors may contest the faithfulness or honesty of the self-appointed plaintiffs; we do not doubt that this monitoring is often useful and that intervention to facilitate an appeal could be justified. Many thoughtful students of the subject conclude, with empirical support, that derivative actions do little to promote sound management and often hurt the firm by diverting the managers' time from running the business while diverting the firm's resources to the plaintiffs' lawyers without providing a corresponding benefit. Janet Cooper Alexander, Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, 43 Stan. L.Rev. 497 (1991); Reinier Kraakman, Hyun Park & Steven Shavell, When are Shareholder Suits in Shareholder Interests?, 82 Geo. L.J. 1733 (1994); Roberta Romano, The Shareholder Suit: Litigation Without Foundation?, 7 J.L. Econ. & Org. 55 (1991); Mark L. Cross, Wallace N. Davidson & John H. Thornton, The Impact of Directors' and Officers' Liability Suits on Firm Value, 56 J. Risk & Insurance 128 (1989); Daniel R. Fischel & Michael Bradley, The Role of Liability Rules and the Derivative Suit in Corporate Law: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, 71 Cornell L.Rev. 261 (1986). The two shareholder-appellants in this case believe that the modest settlement, half of which will be paid to counsel, exemplifies this problem.

Unfortunately, the appeal in Felzen was thrown out on technical grounds, and no one has taken up the challenge, perhaps because it's more lucrative to agree to be paid off for withdrawing an objection to a bad settlement than for successfully challenging the bad settlement.

Until now. Plaintiffs brought a meritless derivative-shareholder suit over an alleged technical violation of the Clayton Act; the corporation found it cheaper to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $925,000 to go away than to defend the suit. But the shareholders get nothing, so they're worse off because of the litigation.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, not only did they sue in the Northern District of Illinois, they sued a corporation where I own shares. After attempting to foreclose objections by mailing out notice three days before objections were due, the parties agreed to a new notice schedule, and I have moved to intervene and dismiss the action for failure to meet the Rule 23.1(a) standard for shareholder representation. The case is Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley, No. 09-5314 (N.D. Ill.) and the fairness hearing is August 27 in Chicago.

Robert Booth Trust v. William Crowley, Sears Holding Corporation shareholder derivative lawsuit

If you're a Sears Holding Corporation (SHLD) shareholder like me, there's a pretty big chance that you got a letter in the mail informing you of a derivative shareholder settlement where the attorneys got $925,000 and the shareholders got the privilege of paying the attorneys $925,000.  The deadline for objecting was June 25.

All well and good, except that my particular notice letter arrived on June 28.  That's because, though the settlement occurred on April 28, and the court approved notice on May 11, the parties didn't bother to ask brokers to provide a list of shareholders until June 1, and then, after receiving the list, didn't bother to mail the notice to tens of thousands of shareholders until June 22 or June 23. 

I was in Chicago yesterday to object to the problematic notice.  While there I met another shareholder who didn't object to the appalling settlement because she also got her notice after the deadline.

The parties initially argued that it was alright to structure notice so that half the shareholders would receive it only after the fact, but after they gauged the judge's reaction to my argument, the parties volunteered to send new notice.  The http://www.searsholdingsderivative.com/ website has not been updated as of Saturday morning, but the new deadline will be August 20, with a new fairness hearing August 27.

The law firm involved, Vianale & Vianale, brings zero-damages lawsuits against corporations alleging technical violations of Section 8 the Clayton Act antitrust law but seeking injunctive relief, and threatens to cost the defendants millions of dollars in litigation expenses if they don't settle.  This is of no benefit to shareholders, because the law in question, when it is enforced, results in the FTC politely requesting a corporation to correct the technical violation; there has not been a government fine issued for "interlocking directorates" in my adult lifetime, and for at least several years before.  The Center will be objecting to this settlement: how can attorneys claim to represent the shareholders when rational shareholders would never agree ex ante to bring a lawsuit that is guaranteed to make them worse off, win or lose?

It generally seems that the majority of my readers are plaintiffs' law firms checking up on me, but if you happen to stumble across this post and happen to own SHLD, you might get a postcard letting you know that you have another opportunity to object.  Of course, unless you own hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock, it might be economically irrational to spend two 44-cent stamps to object; and if you did own that much stock, the opportunity cost of the time you spend objecting is probably pretty high, even if it's just to say "My name is X, my address and phone is Y, I own Z shares of stock, and I join in the objection of Theodore H. Frank."  But unfortunately, plaintiffs' attorneys regularly ask courts to view the rational silence of class members or shareholders as acquiescence in their extortionate theft of shareholder money.