I’m on vacation until the end of next week, so the posts here at CAB may be sparse and short over the next 10 days or so, but here is a short news item that caught my eye. According to this article from the Hindu Times, the Indian Parliament is considering a bill that would allow U.S.-style class actions in securities fraud cases in India.
Archive for July, 2009
Securities Class Actions to Come to India?
Posted in Class Action News, International Class Action Law, tagged hindu times, india, india class action law, indian class action law, securities class action on July 29, 2009| Leave a Comment »
Stanford/Cornerstone Issue Mid-Year Report on Securities Class Action Trends
Posted in Class Action Trends, Reports and Surveys, Securities Class Actions, tagged class action report, Class Action Trends, financial crisis litigation, global financial crisis, securities class action on July 21, 2009| Leave a Comment »
As reported in this recent Financial Times article, the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research have issued a Mid-Year Report on trends in securities class action filings. Among the report’s key findings are that U.S. securities class actions against foreign companies are on the rise and that the financial industry continues to be the target of “unprecedented litigation activity,” trends that are not particularly surprising in the wake of the global financial crisis. Here is a link to the full report available from the Clearinghouse website.
Incentive Awards OK, But Not Incentive Agreements
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Settlements, tagged 9th circuit, class action incentive, class action settlement, class settlement, incentive agreement, incentive award, incentive payment, ninth circuit on July 16, 2009| 1 Comment »
In an opinion entered in April in Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated its disapproval of the practice of plaintiffs’ counsel entering into incentive agreements with putative class representatives, which required their attorneys to seek successively higher payment in the event of class settlements in successively higher dollar amounts. The court described the problem as follows:
Incentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases. See 4 William B. Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions§ 11:38 (4th ed. 2008); Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, Incentive Awards to Class Action Plaintiffs: An Empirical Study, 53 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1303 (2006) (finding twenty-eight percent of settled class actions between 1993 and 2002 included an incentive award to class representatives). Such awards are discretionary, see In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000), and are intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general. Awards are generally sought after a settlement or verdict has been achieved.
The incentive agreements entered into as part of the initial retention of counsel in this case, however, are quite different. Although they only bound counsel to apply for an award, thus leaving the decision whether actually to make one to the district judge, these agreements tied the promised request to the ultimate recovery and in so doing, put class counsel and the contracting class representatives into a conflict position from day one.
The court went on to approve the settlement, which called for the creation of a $49 million settlement fund to compensate a class consisting of aspiring lawyers who paid for BAR/BRI bar review courses from August 1997 through July 31, 2006. The court reasoned that although the incentive agreements were improper, there were two settlement class representatives who had not been parties to the agreements. However, the court remanded for a reconsideration of the attorneys fees to be awarded to the class counsel who had negotiated the incentive agreements and the possibility of an award to counsel for objectors who successfully objected to the incentive fee agreements.
Class Actions Finally Come to Italy
Posted in International Class Action Law, tagged european class action, International Class Action Law, italian class action, italy class action on July 9, 2009| Leave a Comment »
A Securities Docket post today tipped me off to this Reuters article discussing the enactment of “Italy’s first law establishing class actions.” The law will take effect January 2010 and will apply only to conduct occuring after the law’s effective date. At first, I wasn’t sure whether this April 1, 2008, ClassActionBlawg article announcing Italy’s first class action law was just very prescient or an April fool’s joke, but according to the Reuters article, “The law is part of the so-called development package promoted by Development Minister Claudio Scajola, which has been before parliament for nearly a year.”
Expert Testimony and the Rigorous Analysis Standard
Posted in Lawyers' Resources, Reports and Surveys, rule 23, tagged expert testimony, frcp 23, rigorous analysis, rule 23, white paper on July 9, 2009| Leave a Comment »
Economist David Gulley, Ph.D., of Navigant Consulting, has authored an informative white paper entitled Recent Trends in Rule 23 Class Certification Expert Analysis. Dr. Gulley’s article explores the expanding role of experts and increased scrutiny over expert opinion testimony in class certification proceedings in light of recent federal appellate decisions placing renewed emphasis on the rigorous analysis standard. See the Second Circuit’s opinion in In re IPO Securities Litigation and the Third Circuit’s opinion in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation. The paper is a great resource for both class action attorneys and experts who are asked to testify in class certification proceedings.
Subscribe by Email
Twitter Feed: @classaction
- Enjoying an afternoon of great educational content at the 4th Annual ABA Regional Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts 1 week ago
- It's not too late to sign up for the 4th Annual ABA Regional CLE on Class Actions and Mass Torts, SF this Friday: shop.americanbar.org/ebus/ABAEvents… 2 weeks ago
- Chillin' at the #chamusawards 1 month ago
Recent Comments
- Newsfeeds and Notice – How Social Networks Might Affect Class Action Litigation | Class Action Lawsuit Defense on Big Changes to Rule 23 in 2018? Be Sure to Weigh In Now.
- An Excellent Summary of Important Class Action Decisions During the Past Year — Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog on 2010 Class Action Year in Review
- Blogging About Blogging - Drug & Device Law on In Defense of the BigLaw Blog
- Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup - Overlawyered on Supreme Court Declines to Create Sweeping Rules Limiting Use of Statistics in Class Actions, But Offers Some Helpful Standards
- Blogging About Blogging - Drug and Device Law on In Defense of the BigLaw Blog
-
Recent Posts
- Register Now for the 4th Annual ABA Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts – June 16 in San Francisco
- New CADS Article: Class Actions 101: Does the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 Spell Doom for Class Actions as We Know Them?
- BakerHostetler Reports Summarize 2016 Highlights and Trends in Class Actions and Data Privacy
- Looking for the Latest Trends in TCPA Class Action Litigation? Join our Strafford Publications Webinar Tomorrow.
- ABA Sound Advice Podcast – Developments in Data Privacy Class Action Settlements
Archives
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Posts by Date
-
-
“Like” Us On Facebook
Juridical What?
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Trends, Commentary, tagged class certification, joinder, juridical link, standing on July 20, 2009| Leave a Comment »
Not two full weeks after I invoked the “juridical link” doctrine as an example of one of the most obscure legal concepts I could think of (see July 6, 2009 entry, In Defense of the Big Law Blog), a North Carolina Court has apparently applied the doctrine in allowing a class action to be brought against related defendants with whom the named plaintiff had no direct claim. Mack Sperling of The North Carolina Business Litigation Report has a thorough synopsis of the case, Clark v. Alan Vester Auto Group, Inc.
The juridical link doctrine developed as a rule allowing joinder of claims against related governmental actors, but plaintiffs sometimes try to invoke the doctrine as a mechanism to avoid the necessity of establishing separate standing to sue each of several defendants named in a class action. Under the unique circumstances in Clark, where a group of defendants had the same owner, management, and accountant and shared a common computer system and common policies, employees, officers, and sales processes, among other common features, the argument was successful. Other courts have declined to recognize the juridical link doctrine as an exception to standing, especially where there is no allegation of a conspiracy or concerted conduct between the defendants.
For more discussion of the history and courts’ treatment of the juridical link doctrine as an exception to standing, see Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917 (Az. 2005).
For a list of words that rhyme with “juridical” see this link.
Read Full Post »