Enron Class Action Defense Case-Regents v. Credit Suisse: Certification Of Securities Class Action Seeking $40 Billion Overturned By Fifth Circuit Because Classwide Presumption Of Reliance Did Not Apply

Fifth Circuit Holds that District Court’s Erroneous Definition of “Deceptive Acts” Resulted in Mistaken Application of Presumption of Reliance in Certifying Class Action Against Banks, Necessitating Reversal of Class Certification Order

After Enron’s collapse in 2001, dozens of class action and individual lawsuits were filed against numerous defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1924 and Rule 10b-5; more than 30 of these actions were consolidated in the district court for the Southern District of Texas and Regents of the University of California was named lead plaintiff. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 482 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007) [Slip Opn., at 3]. “Years of discovery have ensued, and tens of millions of documents have been produced.” Id. In 2006, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the litigation as a class action, id., at 3-4. Defense attorneys sought and received permission from the Fifth Circuit to file an interlocutory appeal, id., at 2; the Circuit Court reversed.

As the Circuit Court admitted, the facts of this case are “difficult to detail” so we simply quote the Court’s broad summary: “Plaintiffs allege that defendants Credit Suisse First Boston (“Credit Suisse”), Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”), and Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays Bank”) (collectively “the banks”) entered into partnerships and transactions that allowed Enron Corporation (“Enron”) to take liabilities off of its books temporarily and to book revenue from the transactions when it was actually incurring debt. The common feature of these transactions is that they allowed Enron to misstate its financial condition; there is no allegation that the banks were fiduciaries of the plaintiffs, that they improperly filed financial reports on Enron’s behalf, or that they engaged in wash sales or other manipulative activities directly in the market for Enron securities.” Slip Opn., at 2. In essence, the class actions alleged that the banks knew Enron executives were manipulating financial information to inflate the company’s stock price to maximize their personal compensation. Id.

In certifying the class action, the district court concluded that a “deceptive act” under Rule 10b-5(c)3 includes participation in a “transaction whose principal purpose and effect is to create a false appearance of revenues,” and that Rule 10b-5(a)’s prohibition of any “scheme . . . to defraud” creates joint and several liability for individuals who commit deceptive acts in furtherance of such a scheme. Slip Opn., at 3. At the Fifth Circuit explained, “The court’s theory of scheme liability considerably simplified finding commonality among the plaintiffs with respect to loss causation. The court stated that ‘a reasonable argument can be made that where a defendant knowingly engaged in a primary violation of the federal securities laws that was in furtherance of a larger scheme, it should be jointly and severally liable for the loss caused by the entire overarching scheme, including conduct of other scheme participants about which it knew nothing.’” Id., at 3-4. The district court also concluded that plaintiffs could rely on “classwide presumptions of reliance for omissions and fraud on the market” because it believed the banks breached a “duty not to engage in a fraudulent ‘scheme,’” and concluded that plaintiffs need not demonstrate market efficiency or reliance to invoke the fraud-on-the market presumption of reliance under Rule 10-5(a) or (c), believing this to be required only for claims under Rule 10-5(b). Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Microsoft Class Action Defense Case-In re Microsoft I-V Cases: California Appellate Court Affirms Cy Près Provision Of $1 Billion Class Action Settlement

California State Court Holds that Provision in Class Action Settlement for Cy Près Distribution of Unclaimed and Unredeemed Vouchers to Public Schools did not Violate State Law

In February 1999, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Microsoft in state court alleging violations of California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law based on “‘exclusionary and restrictive practices’ that resulted in software overcharges [for Windows and MS-DOS] passed on to the class members.” In re Microsoft I-V Cases, 135 Cal.App.4th 706, 710 (Cal.App. 2006). Because we focus here on the cy près distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds, we note only that following a 1999 federal court trial of state and federal antitrust actions, the district court found against Microsoft, see United States v. Microsoft Corp., (D. D.C. 1999) 84 F.Supp.2d 9), and a wave of class action lawsuits against the company followed. Other California class action cases against Microsoft were coordinated with plaintiffs’ class action, and the coordinated cases became the Microsoft I-V Cases. After the court certified the coordinated litigation as a class action, the parties reached a $1.1 billion settlement and presented it to the court for approval. In re Microsoft I-V Cases, at 711. In approving the class action settlement, the trial court rejected the arguments by an objector to the cy près distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds, and the objector appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

In broad terms, the class action settlement provides for vouchers as direct compensation to members of the class, In re Microsoft I-V Cases, at 711-13. In the event that less than $1.1 billion was claimed, then the agreement provided for cy près distribution of the balance of the settlement proceeds such that Microsoft retained one-third of the unclaimed settlement funds, and two-thirds would be distributed to eligible schools. Id., at 713-14. Similarly, if consumers obtained vouchers but failed to redeem them, then Microsoft would retain one-third of the unused settlement funds, and two-thirds would be distributed to schools. Id., at 714. If schools failed to redeem the vouchers within six years, then they would be given to “other needy organizations in California” upon court approval. Id., at 715.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Progressive West v. Preciado: Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005 (CAFA) Does Not Permit Cross-Defendant To Remove Class Action Cross-Complaint Ninth Circuit Holds

Ninth Circuit Holds that Amendment of Class Action Cross-Complaint did not “Commence” New Action for Purposes of Removal under CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005), and that CAFA would not Avail a Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Because CAFA Permits only a “Defendant” to Remove a Class Action to Federal Court

In December 2004, Progressive West Insurance Company filed a breach of contract lawsuit against its insured in California state court; on February 17, 2005 – the day before the effective date of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) – the insured filed a cross-complaint alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and seeking to prosecute the cross-complaint as a class action. Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. March 6, 2007) [Slip Opn., 2]. The initial class action allegations were deficient, and in August 2006 the trial court granted plaintiff leave to amend the cross-complaint to assert the necessary allegations for a class action. Id. Progressive responded by removing the class action to federal court on the basis of CAFA, id.; the federal court remanded the class action to state court and the Ninth Circuit granted Progressive’s request for leave to appeal, id., at 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order, holding that CAFA did not confer federal court jurisdiction over the putative class action.

Urging the Ninth Circuit to follow the Seventh Circuit opinion in Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005), Progressive argued that CAFA governed the class action complaint because under California’s “relation back” doctrine the “amended cross-complaint commenced a new action because it substantially changed the nature of the action from an individual action to a representative [class] action.” Slip Opn., at 4-5. The Ninth Circuit declined the invitation. The appellate court reaffirmed that a class action is “commenced” for purposes of removal under CAFA “when a suit becomes ‘a cognizable legal action in state court’ under ‘[a] state’s own laws and rules of procedure.’” Id., at 4 (citation omitted). California law deems an action “commenced” as of the date the complaint, or cross-complaint, is filed with the court, id. (citations omitted). Under California law, then, the class action complaint against Progressive “commenced” for purposes of CAFA on February 15, 2005 – the date the initial cross-complaint was filed. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-McAtee v. Capital One: Ninth Circuit Holds That Naming Doe Defendant Does Not Commence New Action For Purposes Of Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005 (CAFA)

Under California Law, Class Action is not “Commenced” under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) by Amending Complaint to Name Doe Defendant Ninth Circuit Holds

In August 2004, plaintiff Ball filed a class action in California state court against various Capital One entities alleging that certain provisions of defendants’ credit card contracts constituted unlawful business practices. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. March 16, 2007) [Slip Opn., 2-3]. Three months later, California voters passed Proposition 64 which necessitated that a plaintiff must have suffered actual injury in order to have standing to bring a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and this new requirement applied to cases pending at the time of its passage. _Id._, at 3. In May 2005, the trial court precluded Ball from pursuing her claims against the named Capital One defendants; an amended complaint was filed naming McAtee as the new party-plaintiff. _Id._ Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which became effective February 18, 2005, arguing that the substitution of plaintiffs constituted the commencement of a “new action” within the meaning of CAFA, _id._, at 3-4. The federal court remanded the action, holding that the class action had been commenced in August 2004 when Ball filed the original class action complaint, _id._, at 4. Following remand, McAtee amended the complaint to add Capital One Bank as a party-defendant and dismissing the original Capital One entities as defendants; defense attorneys again removed the class action to federal court under CAFA, and the federal court again granted plaintiff’s motion for remand. _Id._ The Ninth Circuit granted defendant’s petition for appeal and affirmed the remand order.

As a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals addressed “whether substitution of a named defendant for a Doe defendant in a California state court action commences a civil action against the new named defendant within the meaning of CAFA.” Slip Opn., at 4-5. The question of when an action is “commenced” for purposes of removal under CAFA turns on state law, id., at 7-8. In this regard, the Ninth Circuit rejected the approach taken by some other federal courts that relies, at least in part, on state-law relation back doctrine. Id., at 8-9. The appellate court explained that “[w]hen the ultimate question before the court is whether to dismiss an action for lack of timeliness, it makes sense to apply the relationship back doctrine, for in such cases the very survival of the action is at issue.” Id., at 9. But the consequences are far less severe when the issue is commencement for purposes of jurisdiction only: “The case will be allowed to go forward, in some forum, whether CAFA applies or not. If CAFA applies, the action may go forward in federal court if a defendant files a timely motion for removal. If CAFA does not apply, the action must go forward in state court unless there is some other basis for removal to federal court.” Id., at 10. For this reason, the relation back doctrine simply does not apply to a determination of whether a class action filed in state court may be removed under CAFA: the Ninth Circuit “simply look[s] to the date on which the original complaint in the action was filed.” Id., at 11.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re CitiFinancial: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff’s Motion Supported By Defense To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District of Illinois

Judicial Panel Agrees with Plaintiffs and Defense that Class Action Cases Warranted Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Rejecting Arguments of Sole Plaintiff’s Lawyer in Opposition to Request Five class action lawsuits (Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri and Wisconsin) were filed against CitiFinancial Services and others alleging that certain prescreened mailings from Citifinancial violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because defendants improperly used consumer reports for purposes of mailing prescreened offers of credit for loans to plaintiffs and potential class members.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Lycoming Crankshaft: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Denies Defense Request To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Class Action Lawsuits did not Warrant Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Holds Three class action lawsuits were filed in California and Pennsylvania against various defendants involving crankshaft products liability. Defense attorneys for some of the defendants moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the lawsuits for pretrial purposes in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiffs in all class actions opposed pretrial coordination.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

CertainTeed Class Action Defense Case—In re CertainTeed: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff’s Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects Northern District of Illinois As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Grants Request, Unopposed by Defense, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Easter District of Pennsylvania Eight class action lawsuits were filed against CertainTeed Corp. and other defendants advancing negligence and products liability based on alleged defects in roofing shingles manufactured, warranted, and distributed by CertainTeed. In re CertainTeed Corp. Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 549356, *1 (Jud.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Milberg Weiss Class Action Defense Case-In re New Motor Vehicles: Federal Court Removes Milberg Weiss As Lead Counsel In Multimillion Dollar Antitrust Class Action Litigation

Indictment of Milberg Weiss Warranted Removal of Firm as Vice-Chair of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in Antitrust Class Action Maine Federal Court Holds

Several state and federal antitrust class action lawsuits were filed against most of the major automobile manufacturers and distributors. In June 2003, the class actions were transferred to federal district court for the District of Maine by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. To assist in managing the complex class action litigation, in November 2003 the district court approved a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee consisting of nine law firms, and appointed Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman as vice-chair. In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., 466 F.Supp.2d 364, 366 (D. Me. 2006). Extensive law and motion practice followed, leading to the court certifying a class action as to one of the claims and to two proposed settlements (one for $35 million and one for $700,000), id., at 365-66. In May 2006, a Los Angeles federal grand jury indicted Milberg Weiss and two of its named partners (David Bershad and Steven Schulman) charging that the class action law firm “has engaged in a kickback scheme, illegally paying millions of dollars to certain individuals to represent them as named plaintiffs and thereby achieve the role of lead counsel in class action lawsuits” and seeking criminal forfeiture of hundreds of millions of dollars, id., at 365. Due to the fiduciary duties owed to class members, the district court sua sponte raised the issue of whether Milberg Weiss should continue to serve in a “leadership role,” id., at 365-66. Defense attorneys thereafter moved to disqualify Milberg Weiss from serving on the Executive Committee and from further participation in the class action litigation; the district court removed Milberg Weiss from the Executive Committee “even though the Indictment does not refer to activity in this civil litigation and neither of the two partners actively participating in this litigation has been accused of any misconduct,” but did not grant the request to exclude the firm entirely id., at 366.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Sperry v. Crompton: New York Law Precludes Class Action Lawsuits That Seek To Collect Penalties Unless Expressly Allowed By Statute

CPLR 901(b) Precludes Antitrust Class Action Lawsuits Because Treble Damages Award Under the Donnelly Act is a Penalty New York Court of Appeals Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various defendants seeking damages under New York’s antitrust statute (the Donnelly Act) and deceptive practices statute, and an unjust enrichment theory, alleging that defendants overcharged tire manufacturers for chemicals used in the processing of rubber for tires. Based on the Donnelly Act, the class action complaint prayed for treble damages, costs and attorney fees. Sperry v. Crompton Corp., ___ N.E.2d ___, 2007 WL 527726 (N.Y. February 22, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 2-3.]. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action. The trial court granted the motion, holding that “CPLR 901(b), which precludes a class action to collect a penalty unless specifically authorized by statute, barred the Donnelly Act claim.” _Id._, at 3. The lower court dismissed the remaining counts on grounds not relevant here. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.

Plaintiff argued that a treble damages award under the Donnelly Act did not constitute a penalty within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), citing both New York law and federal case law that treble damages in antitrust actions “are primarily remedial in nature.” Sperry, at 3-4. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The High Court found it “evident” that the Legislature intended the penalty exception in CPLR 901(b) to preclude class action relief “where individual plaintiffs were afforded sufficient economic encouragement to institute actions (through statutory provisions awarding something beyond or unrelated to actual damages), unless a statute expressly authorized the option of class action status.” Id., at 9. The Court explained at page 9, “This means sense, given that class actions are designed in large part to incentivize plaintiffs to sue when the economic benefit would otherwise be too small, particularly when taking into account the court costs and attorneys’ fees typically incurred.”

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Hall v. County of Los Angeles: Defense Properly Granted Summary Judgment In Sex Discrimination Labor Law Class Action Against County California Court Holds

California Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense Because no Evidence Supported Class Action Allegations that County Program Discriminated Against Women or Affected Women Disproportionately to Men

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the County of Los Angeles alleging that it violated the federal Equal Pay Act because it paid female lawyers employed under the County’s “Auxiliary Legal Services” program (ALS) less than it paid male lawyers serving as County Counsel. Hall v. County of Los Angeles, ___ Cal.App..4th ___, 2007 WL 529963, *1 (Cal.App. February 22, 2007). Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the defense motion and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that “the wage disparity between ALS and County Counsel was based on an acceptable business reason, which is a recognized ‘factor other than sex.’” _Id._, at *4 (citation omitted).

In 1984, in order to address a dramatic increase in juvenile court cases, the County formed ALS to supplement the legal services provided by County Counsel. The ALS attorneys were independent contractors, and by the express terms of their contracts they were employees of ALS, not the County. Hall, at *1. ALS was intended to allow the County to realize cost savings by hiring additional attorneys on “as needed” basis “without increasing the number of permanent classified County employees.” Id. “Similarly situated male and female lawyers at ALS were treated the same in terms of salary and benefits, and similarly situated male and female lawyers at County Counsel were treated the same in terms of salary and benefits.” Id., at *2. The class action complaint alleged, however, that there were more female lawyers at ALS than at County Counsel, and that female lawyers at ALS were not paid comparably with male lawyers at County Counsel. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized