Move by Biotech Company Tees Up Court Consideration of Attorneys’-Fee Clause in Corporate Bylaws

DelawareThe Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported today that Philadelphia-based (but Delaware-incorporated) biotechnology company Hemispherx BioPharm Inc. has injected itself into the middle of a growing dispute over attorneys’ fees in shareholder class action lawsuits. (A hat-tip to the Institute for Legal Reform, whose must-read daily email referenced the WSJ Law Blog piece) Prompted by a May 14 Delaware Supreme Court decision, ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, et al., Hemispherx earlier this month adopted a provision in its corporate bylaws that shareholder plaintiffs must pay the company’s legal fees if Hemispherx prevails in a shareholder-initiated lawsuit. The provision applies retroactively to pending suits, and lawyers for shareholders in a class action against Hemispherx have asked the Delaware Chancery Court to invalidate the bylaws.

A July 11 Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder, Is Delaware High Court Ruling an Ace for Merging Companies Served with Shareholder Suits?, discussed the ATP Tour decision and assessed how it could be applied to deter frivolous shareholder class actions. Authored by Snell & Wilmer LLP attorneys Greg Brower and Casey Perkins, the paper explains that ATP Tour involved not a public company, but a private membership corporation which included in its bylaws a fee-shifting provision. The Delaware Supreme Court, answering a question certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, held that the fee-shifting provision was a matter of private contract, and nothing in the state’s corporate law prohibited its inclusion in ATP’s bylaws.

The authors went on to examine whether Delaware statutory or common law would permit public companies to include such a fee-shifting mechanism in their bylaws. They found that a recent Delaware Chancery Court case, Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund, et al. v. Chevron Corporation, et al., strongly supported the legality of fee-shifting through bylaws.  Brower and Perkins concluded:

Chevron and ATP Tour together make it clear that Delaware law is intended to give broad leeway to corporations, private and public, to adopt bylaws not otherwise prohibited by law, and that duly adopted bylaws are presumed to be part of the contract between the company and the member or shareholder. This means that publicly-traded companies and their shareholders ought to be able to freely contract for the details of their relationship, including details such as where disputes between them will be litigated, and whether the losing party in such litigation should have to pay the legal fees of the prevailing party. Such contracts are part of the fundamental structure of the corporate law of Delaware—or, it seems, of any other state for that matter.

Given the financial implications for the securities fraud class action bar and the promise such provisions hold for public companies, the Hemispherx case is likely just the first skirmish in what will be a drawn-out, intense battle over fee-shifting through corporate bylaws.

Class Actions Alleging Injuries from Data Breaches Continue to Wither in Face of Standing Challenges

securityGuest Commentary

by Jennifer Wissinger, a 2014 Judge K.K. Legett Fellow at the Washington Legal Foundation and a student at Texas Tech School of Law.

Data-breach cases were supposed to be a new, lucrative litigation frontier for plaintiffs’ attorneys. Some experts speculated a wave of class-action suits would emerge against companies victimized by unauthorized access of customer data. Media reports of lawsuits filed in the immediate aftermath of high-profile data breaches, like the one that befell Target last December, have created the impression that these cases are proliferating rapidly. Reality belies such perceptions of success, however. Trial courts in fact have routinely dismissed data-breach lawsuits because plaintiffs cannot answer the American legal system’s most fundamental threshold question: have you actually been harmed? As a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases construing the constitutional standing-to-sue requirement dictate, mere fear of possible future harm does not suffice. In many data-breach cases, fear of future harm is the most plaintiffs can prove.

As The Legal Pulse has discussed, the Supreme Court most recently addressed standing two years ago in Clapper v. Amnesty International. Since 2012, federal and state trial courts have consistently applied Clapper’s reasoning to dismiss data-breach cases for lack of standing. In the last two months, three more courts have thrown out data-breach cases because the plaintiffs failed to show that the expected injury was at least “certainly impending.”

Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. After Nationwide’s computer systems were hacked, the company notified its customers and advised them to safeguard their personally identifiable information (PII). Even though Nationwide offered its customers free credit monitoring for a year, the plaintiff in Galaria sued alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and unlawful invasion of privacy under Ohio common law. Continue reading

There’s Nothing “New” about “Lone Pine” Orders for Active Case Management

faulkFeatured Expert Column − Complex Serial and Mass Tort Litigation

by Richard O. Faulk, Hollingsworth LLP*

To listen to the plaintiffs’ bar, you’d think that “Lone Pine” orders were a novelty recently conjured out of “thin air” by creative defense lawyers—or a device unsupported by any significant precedents. But although those orders may seem new to the uninitiated, they have deep roots in the history of active case management.

Many lawyers know—or have learned the hard way—why these case management tools are called “Lone Pine” orders, and what they are intended to accomplish. In Lore v. Lone Pine Corporation, No. L-03306-85, 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup.Ct. Nov. 18, 1986), the plaintiffs claimed injuries resulting from contamination allegedly coming from a landfill. When the defendants presented a government investigation that found no offsite contamination, the court required the plaintiffs to make a preliminary showing of exposure, injury, and causation before allowing full discovery to proceed. This ruling led to other cases which recognized the propriety of “Lone Pine” orders when doubt existed “over what medical condition or disease, if any, can be causally related to the toxic agent exposure alleged by each plaintiff.”2 Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Toxic Torts Litigation Guide § 13:49 (2013). Since then, “Lone Pine” order have proliferated, not only in toxic tort litigation, but also in other types of cases.See generally, David B. Weinstein and Christopher Torres, Managing the Complex: A Brief Survey of Lone Pine Orders, 34 Westlaw Envt’l J. 1 (Aug. 21, 2013) (providing extensive list of categorized cases). Continue reading

The California Supreme Court’s Iskanian Opinion: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

jenkinsGuest Commentary

by Kirk C. Jenkins, Sedgwick LLP*

On June 26, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC. The decision was something of a mixed bag for the defense bar: two major steps forward in the California Supreme Court’s class action jurisprudence, but one step back of uncertain significance.

The plaintiff in Iskanian worked as a driver for the defendant in 2004 and 2005. Halfway through his employment, he signed an agreement providing that “any and all claims” arising out of his employment would be submitted to binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator. The plaintiff agreed not to bring a representative action either in court or before the arbitrator.

A year after leaving his employment, the plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, alleging failure to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses and various other violations of the Labor Code. The defendant moved to compel arbitration and the trial court granted the motion. But while the matter was pending before the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court decided Gentry v. Superior Court, holding that most class action waivers were unenforceable in employment cases. The defendant dropped its motion to compel. Continue reading

New York Court of Appeals Upholds Local Ordinances Restricting Hydraulic Fracturing

sboxermanFeatured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy

by Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP with Joel F. Visser, Sidley Austin LLP

*Editor’s note: Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the Petitioners in the case discussed below.

Across the country, companies are using hydraulic fracturing techniques to develop shale oil and gas resources that create jobs and provide for economic growth. However, developers face a determined opposition that is using referenda, court challenges, and municipal ordinances in an effort to stymie development. In a long-awaited ruling issued today in In re: Mark S. Wallach, as Chapter 7 Trustee for Norse Energy Corp. USA v. Town of Dryden, Case No. 130, and Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v. Town of Middlefield, Case No. 131, the New York Court of Appeals gave this round to the opponents of development, finding the towns’ home rule authority gave it the power to ban development unless explicitly preempted by state statute.

The Court affirmed the appellate court decision that the towns’ prohibitions on oil and gas development were valid zoning ordinances and not preempted by New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (“OGSML”). Two judges dissented from the opinion and would have held that the complete prohibitions on oil and gas activities essentially regulated how oil and gas development can occur and are preempted by the OGSML. The Court made clear, however, that its decision did not address the merits of hydraulic fracturing generally and asserted that such decisions involved policy questions that should be left to the coordinate branches of government.

The OGSML’s supersession clause at issue states: “The provisions of this article [i.e., the OGSML] shall supersede all local laws or ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and solution mining industries; but shall not supersede local government jurisdiction over local roads or the rights of local governments under the real property tax law.” ECL 23-0303(2)). Continue reading

Common Sense Prevails as D.C. Circuit Overturns Trial Court’s Denial of Attorney-Client Privilege Protection

829-Brower_GregjohnsonGuest Commentary

by Greg Brower and Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer LLP*

Government contractors and other companies subject to internal investigation requirements won some relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week with a decision that firmly reiterated that Upjohn v. United States does indeed stand for the proposition that confidential employee communications made during a business’s internal investigation led by company lawyers are privileged.

In United States of America ex rel. Harry Barko v. Halliburton Company, et al, defendant Halliburton’s subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to reverse a district court’s order that KBR produce in discovery, certain reports created as part of internal investigations conducted at the direction of in-house counsel.   Over KBR’s objection, the district court had ordered production of the documents, reasoning that because the KBR investigators who prepared the reports were not lawyers, and because the subject investigations were done pursuant to legal requirements and corporate policy, and not solely for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the reports were not privileged. For more on the trial court’s opinion, see our March 24 Legal Pulse commentary here.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit disagreed and vacated the district court’s order.  In so doing, the panel found that the privilege claim by KBR was “materially indistinguishable” from the assertion of the privilege in the seminal Upjohn case.  Specifically, the court of appeals found that because, as in Upjohn, KBR initiated an internal investigation to gather facts and ensure compliance with the law after being informed of potential misconduct, and because the investigation was conducted under the auspices of KBR’s in-house legal department, the privilege applied.  Continue reading

Supreme Court Observations: Don’t Buy the Spin, EPA Lost the Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA Case

peterglaserGuest Commentary

by Peter S. Glaser, Troutman Sanders LLP

*Editor’s note: On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The author of this commentary represented Washington Legal Foundation pro bono in the case for our amicus briefs at both the petition for certiorari and merits stages.

EPA lost; it didn’t win 

Although you wouldn’t know it from the way EPA and environmental NGOs are portraying the decision.  Industry opposed EPA’s Tailoring Rule with essentially two alternative arguments.  Industry’s maximum position was that EPA could not regulate greenhouse gasses ( GHGs) at all under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V permit programs.  Industry’s alternative position was essentially that if a source is subject to PSD because of its non-GHG emissions (with some caveats), it could be required to do best available control technology (BACT) for both its non-GHG and its GHG emissions.  The Court adopted a variant of industry’s alternative argument.  During briefing, EPA resisted both of industry’s positions.  So it’s a little much for EPA to be claiming victory.

We don’t need to relitigate whether industry should have presented alternative positions or whether industry should have presented the Court with an all-or-nothing position:  either uphold the Tailoring Rule, which we know you don’t want to do, or rule that GHGs cannot be regulated under PSD or Title V at all.  Certainly, a maximum victory would have been preferable to the victory we got, where large facilities triggering PSD for their non-GHG emissions must undertake GHG BACT—a result that is not too far off from at least steps one and two of the Tailoring Rule.  In the end, only two justices (Alito and Thomas) expressed a preference for industry’s maximum position even when presented with the alternative argument.  Whether the other three justices in the majority would have endorsed industry’s maximum position if there had been no alternative position—or whether not presenting an alternative would have resulted in losing the case—is something we will never know. Continue reading

Supreme Court Observations: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

LangdonSmith,DanielF-48047-87-bwrGuest Commentary

by Evan H. Langdon and Daniel F. Smith, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP*

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank is notable for what it does not say. Though the Court struck down a software invention directed to mitigating settlement risk through a computer intermediary as patent ineligible, the Court did not rule that software patents or patents that implement software on a computer are per se ineligible. The Court was careful to leave open the door for patent protection of software inventions. In a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that Alice Corp.’s patent was invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In so doing, the Court reiterated its ruling in Bilski v. Kappos that it is the invention itself that must be patent eligible and whether a claim is directed to software or is tied to a computer does not alter the analysis.

CLS Bank initiated the case by filing for declaratory judgment that the asserted patent was invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed; Alice Corp. counterclaimed for infringement. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on whether the asserted claims are eligible for patent protection. After the Supreme Court issued Bilski, the District Court granted CLS Bank’s motion finding the claims ineligible for patent protection because they were directed to an abstract idea. On appeal, the Federal Circuit panel reversed the District Court, finding it was not “manifestly evident” that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. A divided en banc Federal Circuit upheld the District Court’s conclusion with a five judge plurality concluding that the claims draw on an abstract idea and the use of a computer added nothing of substance to that idea.

Reliance on Mayo and Gottschalk

In analyzing the claims at issue, the Court relied heavily on its established precedent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and concluded that Alice Corp.’s claims did not cover patentable subject matter. The Court emphasized the long-standing principle that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable because upholding such a patent would effectively grant a monopoly and pre-empt the claimed approach in all fields. Continue reading

Supreme Court Observations: Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund

supreme courtGuest Commentary

by Lyle Roberts, Cooley LLP

*Editor’s note: We are cross-posting this commentary from Mr. Roberts’s blog, The 10b-5 Daily, where it originally appeared. Mr. Roberts authored Washington Legal Foundation’s amicus brief in Halliburton.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision in the Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund case holding that defendants can rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance at the class certification stage with evidence of a lack of stock price impact. It is a 9-0 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, although Justice Thomas (joined by Justices Alito and Scalia) concurred only in the judgment. As discussed in a February 2010 post on this blog, Halliburton has a long history that now includes two Supreme Court decisions on class certification issues. A summary of the earlier Supreme Court decision can be found here.

Under the fraud-on-the-market presumption, reliance by investors on a misrepresentation is presumed if the misrepresentation is material and the company’s shares were traded on an efficient market that would have incorporated the information into the stock price. The fraud-on-the-market presumption is crucial to pursuing a securities fraud case as a class action—without it, the proposed class of investors would have to provide actual proof of its common reliance on the alleged misrepresentation, a daunting task for classes that can include thousands of investors.

The fraud-on-the-market presumption, however, is not part of the federal securities laws. It was judicially created by the Supreme Court in a 1988 decision (Basic v. Levinson). In Halliburton, the Court agreed to revisit that decision, but ultimately decided that there was an insufficient “special justification” for overturning its own precedent. Continue reading

Finger on the Pulse: From Our Blogroll and Beyond

  • Five take-aways from FDA’s response to drug company coalition citizen petition regarding promotion of off-label uses (Original Source)
  • Class action lawyers will do anything to keep their cases alive, even asking courts to reopen discovery so they can find replacement lead plaintiffs (Class Action Countermeasures)
  • Why POM Wonderful SCOTUS ruling doesn’t alter landscape of food labeling class actions (we agree in this post) (Class Defense)
  • SEC Commissioner addresses boards of directors’ responsibilities in preventing and responding to cyberattacks and data breaches (D&O Diary)
  • With Solicitor General’s brief in Medtronic v. Stengel, federal government changes its tune on preemption (Drug & Device Law)
  • FDA issues two more “draft guidances” on social media use to promote medical products, one of which boils down to don’t use Twitter (FDA Law Blog)
  • The Supreme Court will review a critically important matter of administrative law in its October 2014 term: when does a change in established guidance require rulemaking? (Federal Regulations Adviser)