The 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.
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
Featured 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
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
Concerns that businesses were being victimized by abusive lawsuits filed in state courts—in particular, nationwide class actions and mass actions—led Congress to adopt the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005. Congress intended that CAFA ease removal of class and mass actions from state to federal court. The law has had mixed results in that regard, , as plaintiffs’ lawyers have devised a variety of clever ways to evade CAFA and thereby ensure that their nationwide suits can remain in state court. If a recent Oklahoma state-court decision is any indication, however, the plaintiffs’ bar may finally have met its match: the Supreme Court’s January 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman. That decision imposed strict limitations on a court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. The Oklahoma court invoked Daimler to dismiss hundreds of plaintiffs from a mass action that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit already had deemed not removable under CAFA.
The case involved product liability claims by 702 individuals from 26 States, each of whom alleged that she had suffered injuries from pelvic mesh surgical devices manufactured by Ethicon, Inc. (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson). CAFA permits removal to federal court of “mass actions” filed by 100 or more plaintiffs raising substantially similar claims. To reduce the risk of removal, the plaintiffs’ lawyers grouped the claims into 11 separate lawsuits, each containing fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Nonetheless, it was obvious that the plaintiffs wanted the cases tried together: they filed the lawsuits in a tiny Oklahoma county with only a single trial judge, thereby ensuring that all 702 claims would be heard by a single judge. They also took steps to prevent removal based on diversity of citizenship: they included at least one New Jersey resident as a plaintiff in each of the 11 lawsuits. Because the defendants have their principal places of business in New Jersey, the inclusion of one New Jersey plaintiff in each case eliminated complete diversity of citizenship and thus precluded removal based on diversity. Continue reading
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
On June 16, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Commonwealth’s arguments that Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) was liable for fraudulently overcharging state health agencies. The state had sued BMS and 13 other pharmaceutical companies and won a $27 million damage award. In the unanimous ruling, the Court dropped a noteworthy footnote in which it questioned Pennsylvania’s reliance on private contingent-fee lawyers to prosecute the case. The decision is just the latest in a string of costly failures by deputized plaintiffs’ lawyers in state actions against drug companies.
The Court’s unanimous Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products decision turned on whether the Pennsylvania agencies suffered any financial loss when taking into account the value of rebates that BMS provided the state for drug purchases. The state claimed that BMS took advantage of the complex “average wholesale price” (AWP) formula to artificially increase its profits from sales to health agencies. BMS denied those charges, and argued that even if the agencies were overcharged, the rebates offset the alleged financial harm. Despite testimony from state officials that they did take rebates into consideration when assessing drug payments, Pennsylvania excluded rebates when formulating its damages claim. The trial court bought the state’s justification for this contradictory stance, as did the Commonwealth Court on appeal.
The justices seemed shocked by the lower courts’ unquestioned acceptance of Pennsylvania’s stance on rebates. Justice Saylor wrote, “[T]his Court is not in need of a body of evidence to apprehend that a rebate operates to reduce the net price of a commodity.” The Supreme Court found it “astonishing” that the Commonwealth Court would allow the state to collect “a billion dollars in rebates relative to social welfare reimbursements while giving no credit to the payers.” Continue reading
“This settlement is so unfair, it cannot be fixed.”
That statement marked the beginning of the end of a federal district court judge’s opinion, as well as the class-action settlement to which the opinion referred. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge William Alsup’s May 29 opinion in Daniels v. Aéropostale West, Inc. provides a tutorial on how not to win judicial approval of a class-action settlement.
Ms. Daniels alleged that she and other employees of the trendy apparel retailer Aéropostale were denied non-discretionary bonus pay (i.e., overtime) in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Judge Alsup conditionally certified the class in April 2013. Daniels provided notice to all employees in the class, and 594 opted into the suit. The parties filed a motion on April 24, 2014 seeking preliminary approval of a proposed settlement.
For reasons we will elaborate, Judge Alsup refused to grant approval. On June 12, the court entered an order decertifying Daniels, dismissing the claims, and extending the statute of limitations for 30 days so dismissed plaintiffs could pursue individual suits if they wish. The order noted that the parties agreed to the decertification, and that Aéropostale would make payment to any class member “who did not receive full payment for the overtime adjustment on any non-discretionary bonus earned during the collective action period.” The plaintiff’s lawyers agreed to provide notice of the action’s decertification at their own expense.
Lessons. In just 12 pages, Daniels offers litigants and their lawyers at least five lessons on how to undo your own class-action settlement.
Lesson #1: Be unresponsive to the court’s requests
In just the second paragraph of the opinion, Judge Alsup took the unusual step of noting the name and affiliation of all counsel of record in the case. This was not done to recognize their brilliant advocacy. As the rest of the opinion reveals, the lawyers, among other things, failed to provide the court with expert damage reports as required by federal procedural rules. After the parties filed their proposed settlement, the court had to ask twice for more information or corrections to the document. When pressed by Judge Alsup, Daniels’s lawyer could not state how much the plaintiff would ask the jury to reward. In addition, “Plaintiff’s counsel also failed to provide any specific information about overtime hours worked and non-discretionary bonuses paid.” Continue reading
In some of our commentaries on food labeling class actions (collected under the “Food Court” tag), we have lamented how such lawsuits end-run the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act’s (FDCA) prohibition on private enforcement. Defendants have argued that the FDCA preempts lawsuits brought under laws such as California’s Sherman Law or Unfair Competition Act. Regrettably, judges have rejected this argument, and have found preemption only if a lawsuit would impose labeling requirements beyond what Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations would require.
Plaintiffs and defendants in these suits expressed significant interest when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in January to review a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision, POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. There, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the FDCA precluded POM’s federal Lanham Act suit charging that a Minute Maid Blueberry Pomegranate juice’s name and label were misleading. While POM Wonderful involved the interplay between two federal statutes, rather than between federal and state statutes, some opined that a broadly written Supreme Court opinion could either help state-law food labeling suit defendants defeat those claims or add powerful credence to plaintiffs’ arguments that the FDCA does not impede their private enforcement actions.
The High Court decided POM Wonderful on June 12. In an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit. While the ruling could inspire more Lanham Act lawsuits between competitors, it is unlikely to have a major impact on the types of class actions being filed in The Food Court and elsewhere.
Justice Kennedy stated baldly that “this is not a pre-emption case,” and thus “the state-federal balance does not frame the inquiry.” POM Wonderful therefore will not impact arguments that the FDCA preempts state-law class actions challenging food labels. Justice Kennedy also observed “this is a statutory interpretation case,” and focused the Court’s analysis on whether the FDCA and the Lanham Act were complementary or conflicting. Continue reading
New Hampshire likes to be first. It boasts America’s first modern state-run lottery, the first ski school, and even the world’s first paintball game. And Dixville Notch, NH residents enter the first votes in each presidential election.
Thanks to a recent $236 million verdict in a state-sponsored lawsuit, New Hampshire may be gunning for first in the hearts and minds of America’s plaintiffs’ bar too—a distinction, Washington Legal Foundation’s General Counsel Mark Chenoweth argues in a June 11 New Hampshire Union Leader op-ed, that the state should not proudly embrace.
New Hampshire hired private, contingent-fee attorneys to sue oil companies for groundwater contamination. As Mark explains:
They alleged that leaking underground storage tanks contaminated local groundwater with the chemical MTBE. But rather than sue gas stations that owned the leaking tanks (and violated EPA rules), the state’s hired guns went after deep-pocketed oil companies (that were following EPA rules). The lawyers calculated that they could win a large payday, regardless of those companies’ actual responsibility, by putting deep pockets and pollution claims in front of a jury.
In compliance with a statutory mandate, EPA allowed the addition of MTBE to gasoline to improve air quality. Congress anticipated that leaks might occur, so it created a fund states could tap for clean-up. New Hampshire did not seek money from the fund, perhaps, the Union Leader op-ed notes, because the state would have to use those funds for groundwater clean-up. Not wanting to be limited, the state filed suit instead, even though it could not show physical harm to any person or destruction of any property.
New Hampshire now could have a $236 million slush fund courtesy of a jackpot justice verdict, and as Mark writes, “Attorney General Joseph Foster has staunchly opposed placing the money in a state-managed trust devoted to testing and clean-up.”
New Hampshire’s “success” has inspired neighboring Vermont to jump on the MTBE lawsuit bandwagon. Dallas law firm Baron & Budd and New York firm Weitz & Luxenberg will be joining up with New Hampshire’s local counsel, the Pawa Law Group, to represent Vermont and its litigious attorney-general, William Sorrell.