Posts Tagged ‘class actions’

Lerach retires; nearing a plea deal?

Law.com reports in its summary:

Renowned plaintiffs attorney William Lerach, lead partner at Lerach Coughlin, announced Tuesday he’s stepping down from the firm he started when he split off the West Coast offices of what is now Milberg Weiss. Lerach said he’s planning to take some time off. That could include going to prison, or at least the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Lerach is said to be nearing a deal with federal prosecutors related to legally questionable payments Milberg Weiss made to its lead plaintiffs and a former expert witness.

The WSJ Law Blog similarly reports that “Lerach has not been charged, but he is in advanced talks with prosecutors on a plea deal that could be announced in September and involve serving prison time, according to two people familiar with the investigation.” It also has Lerach’s departure memo to colleagues at the law firm that will now be known as Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (cross-posted from Point of Law).

Filed under: Bill Lerach, class actions, Coughlin Stoia, Milberg Weiss, scandals

Letter to the editor

In the August 27 Legal Times:

To the editor:

I appreciated the chance to speak with reporter Tony Mauro about Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, an upcoming Supreme Court case that will be discussed at an AEI panel on Oct. 5. Unfortunately, a sentence in his Aug. 20 article [“High Court Head Count at Issue,” Page 1] incorrectly implied that I thought the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case was an “anti-investor ruling,” when that characterization is solely Mauro’s.

On the contrary, as I have written in The Wall Street Journal and told Mauro, I believe that the 8th Circuit’s dismissal of the case redounds to the benefit of investors in general and that the best result for investors (if not for trial lawyers) would be affirmance by the Supreme Court. And I say that even though I am a putative class member in Stoneridge.

Theodore H. Frank
Resident Fellow
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Washington, D.C.

Filed under: class actions, securities litigation, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

New at Point of Law

Among things you’ve missed if you haven’t been keeping up with our sister site: law firm tells silicosis clients that “unfortunately” they’ve checked out healthy and don’t have the disease after all; American Express pays $3 million, and class action objectors go away; Harvard’s Larry Tribe apologizes to the widow of the late Prof. Bernard Siegan; French consumerist vows not to replicate U.S. folly on class actions; Madison County, Ill. courts due for upgrade to heckhole status?; Hillary bashes Obama for supporting class action reform; Deborah La Fetra concludes her week of guestblogging on premises liability, negligent security and other matters; and much, much more.

Filed under: class actions, France, Madison County, roundups, silicosis

Business Week on arbitration clauses

The Ninth Circuit, bound by California Supreme Court precedent, struck down a class-action waiver in an arbitration clause in a Cingular cell-phone contract. As I note to Business Week, forcing consumers to keep legal rights that they may not want ex ante raises prices: better to permit consumers and businesses the choice of how best to arrange their business affairs through freedom of contract. This is largely unpopular with the 17 commenters to the article.

Filed under: arbitration, class actions

Stoneridge order

The Supreme Court issued the following order today:

The motion of Former SEC Commissioners for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time is granted. The motion of John Conyers, Jr. and Barney Frank for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time is granted. The Chief Justice and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.

Respondents had objected to the out-of-time filing by the Former SEC Commissioners. Separately, Tony Mauro speculates in the Legal Times whether Roberts or Breyer will “unrecuse” themselves. (Mauro quotes me and Professor Bainbridge (who gets all the good lines); the “anti-investor opinion” language is Mauro’s, however, and not mine: as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal and expressed to Mauro, the lower-court decision was decidedly pro-investor, if anti-trial lawyer.) As the order suggests, however, if Roberts and Breyer are going to divest themselves of Cisco stock so they can participate in the case, they have not done so yet. Earlier: Aug. 15; POL May 20.

Full disclosure: As an unnamed class member, I am a plaintiff in Stoneridge, and would be entitled to some small amount of class recovery. Also, I hate hate hate respondent Scientific-Atlanta with a deep burning passion, not least because Scientific-Atlanta attorneys subjected me to a harassing subpoena. Nevertheless, a victory for petitioners would be disastrous.

Filed under: class actions, securities litigation, Supreme Court

Bipartisan group of SEC chairs, law professors, speak out against “scheme liability”

The trial bar’s efforts to broadly expand the securities laws through judicial fiat is challenged in an amicus brief filed in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta (earlier: Jul. 31, etc.), including former SEC chairs Roderick Hills, Harvey Pitt and Harold Williams; and law professors Richard Epstein, Joseph Grundfest, Stephen Bainbridge, and Larry Ribstein.

Update: Not only has the Department of Justice come out in favor of affirmance (despite extensive lobbying by the plaintiffs’ bar), but both major stock exchanges—who interests unquestionably parallel the interests of investors as a group—filed amicus briefs seeking affirmance. But watch the press portray this as “businesses versus investors” instead of “businesses and investors versus trial lawyers and government officials seeking donations from trial lawyers.”

Update: Oral argument is October 9. AEI will hold a panel discussing the case October 5.

Filed under: class actions, proximate cause, Richard Epstein, securities litigation, Supreme Court

Biting the hand that feeds us: Center for a Just Society

We’ve earlier discussed Ramesh Ponnuru’s expose of The Center for a Just Society, a trial lawyers organization that masquerades as conservatives; the article quoted both me and Walter. The Center has purchased a banner ad on our site, arguing for wide-ranging liability in the Enron litigation. We’re happy to run the ad, because the debate is entirely one-sided. Readers will note how the idea of causation, or statutory requirements, or Supreme Court precedent, or long-term negative impact on investors from expanded liability, is entirely ignored in Conner’s article, and the allegation of wrongdoing is entirely conclusory. Those interested in a more complete discussion of the issues in the Enron case may wish to review the expanded version of my Wall Street Journal op-ed available on the AEI website, or the opposition to certiorari by the defendants in the Enron litigation:

Read On…

Filed under: class actions

What took so long?

I was wondering when former class members represented by Milberg Weiss would take a speculative flyer to convince a court that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) does not preclude relief and sue the law firm over its kickback scandal and Peter Lattman reports that that has happened. Alas for schadenfreude, I am utterly unpersuaded by the complaint, which makes no attempt to jump that procedural hurdle: Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b) prohibits reopening even judgments procured by fraud more than a year after they close, and I’m unaware of courts permitting end-arounds of the rule through collateral lawsuits. But perhaps the plaintiffs have an undisclosed legal trick up their sleeve for when the motion to dismiss comes.

Lattman’s blog posts on Milberg Weiss always attract an interesting flood of anonymous comments defending the firm, and this one is no different: one such comment suggests, perhaps libelously, that the suing law firm has its own history of kickbacks.

Filed under: class actions, libel slander and defamation, Milberg Weiss

Stoneridge: Wherein I am a footnote

Reps. Barney Frank and John Conyers, Jr. spend taxpayer dollars to file a late amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs’ lawyers and against investors in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, taking issue with my Wall Street Journal op-ed on the case. (H/t L.R.) To wit, “A number of commentators have called for the Court to decide this case by reference to policy considerations nowhere found in the statute.” This is wrong: the op-ed explicitly noted that Congress had twice rejected precisely the sort of liability that petitioners were seeking in this case. It is also ironic: civil securities fraud liability was created by judicial fiat out of a statute that had no private right of action.

Filed under: class actions, politics, securities litigation, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

Sears wheel alignment class action, cont’d

More coverage of the Sears wheel-alignment case (see May 18) in which lawyers were slated to get $1 million and the client class $2,402 (not $2,402 apiece — $2,402 in the aggregate):

A North Carolina judge has harshly criticized the settlement of a class-action lawsuit in which a Wilmington lawyer and colleagues received $950,000 in fees while consumers who Sears overcharged across the country were reimbursed a total of $2,402.

Superior Court Judge Ben Tennille decried the excessive fees and the lack of effort made to reach customers who had paid too much for wheel alignments at Sears automotive centers. Tennille, who specializes in complex business cases, criticized Sears and the lawyers for trying to hide the settlement results from him.

“Their efforts to keep the results secret are understandable,” Tennille wrote in his May decision. “The shocking incongruity between class benefit and the fees … leave the appearance of collusion and cannot help but to tarnish the public perception of the legal profession.”…

“Doing the math in this case is easy,” the judge wrote. “For each class member who received a $10 check or $4 coupon, plaintiffs’ counsel received just shy of $3,000.”

(Joseph Neff, “Fleeced Sears patrons shorted again in settlement”, Raleigh News & Observer, Jul. 23; Ed Cone, Jul. 24). The settlement was initially brought to a wider audience’s attention by Nick Pace of the Rand Corporation at Consumer Law & Policy blog (May 17).

Filed under: class actions, North Carolina