Congratulations to Marty Katz, formerly the interim Dean and now permanent Dean of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.  Dean Katz was selected from a deep pool of extraordinarily talented and accomplished applicants.  The future of the Sturm College of Law looks bright with Dean Katz at the helm.  During his brief tenure as interim dean, the school’s bar passage rate improved to its highest level in more than 20 years, reaching 91% for first time takers who took the July 2009 exam.  Dean Katz has also been instrumental in leading the faculty in the drafting of a new long term strategic plan.  The University issued this press release earlier today:

News Release

For Release: February 9, 2010

Contact:  Chase Squires

Phone: (303) 871-2660

E-mail: Chase.Squires@du.edu

University of Denver names new law dean

Martin Katz to lead Sturm College of Law

DENVER – Martin Katz has been named dean of the University of Denver (DU) Sturm College of Law, Chancellor Robert Coombe announced Feb. 8, 2010. 

Katz, who has served as interim dean since July, says he is eager to help implement a new strategic plan developed in conjunction with top law schools and the Colorado and national legal community and approved overwhelmingly by the faculty. The blueprint provides a framework for building upon new initiatives in teaching that focus on real-world preparation and provide graduates with the tools they will need in today’s rapidly changing legal climate.

“I’m very excited to take this role. It’s a unique time and a unique set of opportunities at the law school,” Katz says. “There are significant changes afoot in both the practice of law and in our understanding of how to provide the best legal education possible. Our strategy to achieve this vision provides a thoughtful blueprint for taking advantage of the new world we’re living in.”

 Chancellor Coombe says the University community can look forward to Katz’ leadership.

 “We are pleased to have Dean Katz lead the Sturm College of Law,” Coombe says. “We are confident we have selected the right person to take us forward, working in partnership with the faculty, our alumni, and the regional legal community to develop the Sturm College into one of the premier law schools in the country.”

Katz, a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, has served on the Sturm College of Law faculty since 2000. Before that, he served as an adjunct instructor at the University of Colorado Law School and was a partner in the employment law group at Davis, Graham & Stubbs. He is admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the Eighth and Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court: District of Colorado and the state of Colorado.

Katz specializes in antidiscrimination law, both within constitutional law and employment law. His work has been published extensively, including in the Georgetown Law Journal, the Notre Dame Law Review, the Indiana Law Journal, the Hastings Law Journal and the Yale Law Journal.

 In addition to his work in law, Katz is a licensed pilot. He serves on the Civil Air Patrol’s search and rescue team and has flown medical transport missions for Angel Flight West.

The University of Denver is committed to improving the human condition and engaging students and faculty in tackling the major issues of our day. The oldest private university in the Rocky Mountain West with more than 12,300 students in undergraduate and graduate study, DU is a nationally recognized research university and ranks among the top 100 Universities in the U.S.

As reported by a variety of news outlets, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, on January 29, a federal jury found French conglomerate Vivendi liable for securities fraud, setting the stage for a potential multi-billion dollar damages award.  In 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had made headlines in the same case when it decided to allow French, Dutch, and British investors to be included in the class.  (See this July 31, 2008 CAB Article for a link to that order).

The verdict marks the end of the latest chapter in a battle over the viability of ”foreign-cubed” or “f-cubed” class actions–or securities fraud class actions alleging fraud by a foreign corporation, on foreign investors, involving securities traded on a foreign exchange.  The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in the case of Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., Docket No. 08-1191, in which it will address whether and under what circumstances foreign-cubed class actions may be brought under U.S. securities laws.  (See this December 1, 2009 CAB Article for a discussion of the decision to grant certiorari and for links to prior developments in the case).

Stay tuned to ClassActionBlawg for future developments in the Vivendi and Morrison cases as well as other f-cubed cases.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge’s attempt to exact poetic justice out of a proposed gift card settlement has resulted in a censure by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, according to this article from the legal humor blog, Lowering the Bar.  The censure stems from a ruling on a motion for final approval of a settlement that reportedly called for a $125,000 fee for the plaintiffs’ lawyer and $10 gift card for settlement class members.  Judge Brett Klein, filling in for an ill colleague in presiding over the final fairness hearing, had initially approved the settlement only on the condition that the fee also be paid in gift cards (although he apparently later granted reconsideration of that order and the settlement was ultimately approved as originally proposed). 

It sounds like the cult hero status that Judge Klein will have attained among some factions of society as a result of the ruling may have more than compensated for the shame of the public censure, especially since he has since retired from the bench.  But whether or not you think the lawyer got what he deserved, other aspects of the conduct that reportedly led to the censure have to be troubling, such as sarcastic comments to the attorneys during the fairness hearing and “grandstanding” to the press about the order.  It is one thing to believe that “coupon” settlements are unfair and should not be allowed, it is quite another for a judge to publicly mock lawyers and litigants for seeking relief that is within his power to simply deny with dignity and decorum.

Postscript: 2/8/10 – Following my posting of the original article above, a reader sent me the following, which may be of interest to others as well:

If you’re curious what sarcastic remarks the Court made, you can read
the ten examples quoted on pages 3-4 of the official censure order:

http://cjp.ca.gov/userfiles/file/Censures/Klein_DO_2-2-10.pdf

One would need to look at the entire 32-page reporter’s transcript to find out
what the attorneys told the Court about the details of the settlement.

Yesterday, NERA Economic Consulting issued a working paper entitled Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2009 Update.  The paper covers offers a variety of figures and statistics on cases being pursued, time to resolution, the values of settlements reached in 2009, the exposure represented by cases still pending, and the number of cases with parallel U.S. proceedings.  One key trend discussed in the report is the development of the law on “secondary market liability” provisions of provincial securities acts, especially the Ontario Securities Act.  For a primer on secondary market liability in Canada, see this article from Canadian firm McCarthy Tétrault entitled Ten Quick Tips on Minimizing Exposure to Secondary Market Civil Liability.

Sorry to all my loyal readers (I use the plural form optimistically) for my absence from the Blawgosphere during the past week.  During my hiatus, Ward Branch of the Vancouver, B.C. firm Branch MacMaster sent me a copy of this decision denying class certification in an Alberta case filed against a chiropractic professional association and a would-be defendant class of chiropractors.  The case had received quite a bit of press in Canada when it was filed, no doubt due in no small part to the catastrophic injuries suffered by the named plaintiff, allegedly as a result of treatment received from a chiropractor.  (See, e.g., this June 2008 Canadian Press article).  In addition to addressing class certification issues, the decision addresses some interesting issues regarding the duty of care owed by a professional association to the public for injuries allegedly caused by its failure to properly regulate its members.

Last week, I posted a short note about the Eighth Circuit’s decision in In re Baycol Products Litigation.  Here is a more in-depth synopsis, thanks to fellow Baker & Hostetler partner Joe Ezzi:

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court order enjoining state court plaintiffs from pursuing a class action because the district court had already denied certification of an identical class in federal court.  In re Baycol Products Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. January 5, 2010).

A state court putative class action was filed by George McCollins in West Virginia in 2001.  Bayer removed the case and it became part of a multidistrict action consolidated before the district court in Minneapolis.  Class certification was denied in the McCollins MDL class action, with the district court making certain legal conclusions concerning economic loss requirements under West Virginia law related to predominance.  At the same time, a similar West Virginia state court class action was pending against Bayer, albeit with different putative class representatives.  Following the district court’s denial of class certification, Bayer moved the district court to enjoin the plaintiffs in the West Virginia state court action from pursuing a class action because, as absent putative class members of the McCollins lawsuit, they could not relitigate the previous federal court decision denying certification of a West Virginia economic loss class.  The district court granted Bayer’s request for an injunction under the All Writs Act. 

The Eighth Circuit, in affirming the district court order enjoining the West Virginia state court class action, found that the West Virginia state court plaintiffs sought “certification on the same legal basis of the same class already denied in this case.”  In re Baycol Products Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. January 5, 2010), slip op. at 6.  Thus, “in the context of MDL proceedings, certification in a state court of the same class under the same legal theories previously rejected by the federal district court presents an issue sufficiently identical to warrant preclusion under federal common law.”  Id. at 10.  Further, relying on the Seventh Circuit decision in In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d 763 (2003), the Eighth Circuit noted that the putative class representative in the federal action was in privity with the state court class representatives for purposes of collateral estoppel based on allegations of adequacy of representation and because both putative class representatives asserted the same claims.

A colleague tipped me off today to a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a Minnesota federal district court’s order enjoining class certification proceedings in a West Virginia state court, following the federal court’s earlier denial of class certification in an action filed against the same defendant.  Here’s a link to the slip opinion: In re Baycol Products Litigation, No. 09-1069 (8th Cir., Jan. 5 2010).  The decision is in accord with a 2003 Seventh Circuit decision, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d 763, 767-68 (7th Cir. 2003), which also held that the relitigation exception to the federal Anti-Injunction Act ”permitted an injunction barring relitigation in state court of a federal court’s denial of class certification.”  In re Baycol Prods. Lit., No. 09-1069, slip op. at 9 (citing In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d at 769).

Andrew J. Trask (twitterfeed: @classstrategist) of the international law firm, McGuire Woods, has a great new legal blog called Class Action Countermeasures.   The blog’s tagline is “Discussions of the Strategic Considerations Involved in Class Action Defense,” and it definitely lives up to that promise.  Here’s just a sample of the titles of insightful articles published on the blog over the past month:

• Making the 30(b)(6) Deposition Work for You
• Fighting Fishing Expeditions, The Oppenheimer Relevance Objection
• Beating Plaintiffs to the Punch, The Motion to Deny Class Certification
• Battling Third Party Litigation Funding: Aim Interrogatories at Funding Sources?

I’m adding Class Action Countermeasures to my blogroll and will be checking it for updates regularly, so opposing counsel, beware!

I’m in Montana this week visiting family for the Holidays. Merry Christmas, and check back next week for new content.

Cy pres awards continue to be a hot topic both in the news and in academia.  The latest contribution comes from Columbia law student Sam Yospe, whose article entitled Cy Pres Distributions in Class Action Settlements (Columbia Business Law Review, forthcoming) examines judicial discretion in choosing cy pres awards and makes practical suggestions for reform.  Yospe’s article is an excellent secondary research source for anyone looking at issues relating to cy pres awards in class action settlements.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1492105