The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit’s decision in the “foreign-cubed” securities class action Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., No. 07-0583-cv (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit’s decision is discussed at some length in this October 28, 2008 CAB Entry. The Supreme Court docket number is 08-1191.
The questions presented for review are as follows:
I. Whether the antifraud provisions of the United States securities laws extend to transnational frauds where: (a) the foreign-based parent company conducted substantial business in the United States, its American Depository Receipts were traded on the New York Stock Exchange and its financial statements were filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”); and (b) the claims arose from a massive accounting fraud perpetrated by American citizens at the parent company’s Florida-based subsidiary and were merely reported from overseas in the parent company’s financial statements.
II. Whether this Court, which has never addressed the issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction may extend to claims involving transnational securities fraud, should set forth a policy to resolve the three-way conflict among the circuits (i.e., District of Columbia Circuit versus the Second, Fifth and Seventh Circuits versus the Third, Eighth and Ninth Circuits).
III. Whether the Second Circuit should have adopted the SEC’s proposed standard for determining the proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in transnational securities fraud cases, as set forth in the SEC’s amicus brief submitted at the request of the Second Circuit, and whether the Second Circuit should have adopted the SEC’s finding that subject matter jurisdiction exists here due to the “material and substantial conduct in furtherance of” the securities fraud that occurred in the United States.
Read Full Post »
I Object, Unless You Pay Me … One Million Dollars!
Posted in Articles, class action reform, Class Action Trends, Commentary, Practice Tips, tagged class action objection, class certification, objector blackmail, professional objector, quick-pay, settlement approval on December 14, 2009 | 1 Comment »
Vanderbilt law professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick has published a great new research paper titled The End of Objector Blackmail? The paper discusses the problems of objectors blackmailing the parties to a class action settlement into paying them a portion of the fees at the threat of holding up final approval and resolution of the settlement. Professor Fitzpatrick discusses the history of the problem, provides a statistical analysis of “quick-pay provisions,” which have been one approach to combatting the problem, and finally argues for an approach that prohibits settlements of objector appeals unless the settlement includes a modification to the underlying agreement.
My own take on this issue, based purely on my own anecdotal observations, is that the objector blackmail problem has improved significantly over the past few years. From a defendant’s perspective, it was never much of a problem to have class counsel forfeit a portion of their fee to an objector to hasten approval of a settlement, but many plaintiffs’ lawyers have started refusing to negotiate with objectors. Two additional effective practical tools for fighting frivolous objectors include 1) asking the Court to require the posting of a substantial bond pending appeal of any objection to the settlement; and 2) asking the trial court for sanctions against frivolous objectors or their counsel.
Read Full Post »