AOL Class Action Defense Case-Simpson v. AOL: Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Securities Claims Against Securities Issuer’s Business Partners Properly Granted Ninth Circuit Holds

Class Action Securities Fraud Claims Against Business Partners of Internet Company Failed to Establish § 10(b) Liability for Secondary Actors

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against multiple defendants alleging securities fraud arising out of the overstating of revenues of an Internet company. Defense attorneys for several outside defendants and individual defendants successfully moved to dismiss the § 10(b) claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the grounds that Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) holds that § 10(b) does not permit recovery for aiding and abetting, and that the moving defendants were not “primary violators.” Simpson v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 452 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the interpretation of Central Bank proffered by the defense, but affirmed because plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged that defendants were primary violators of § 10(b). Id., at 1043. We do not here summarize the detailed fact pattern set forth in the Ninth Circuit opinion. Rather, we focus on the court’s holdings concerning Central Bank and § 10(b) liability.

Defense attorneys argued that “Central Bank limited primary liability under § 10(b) to defendants who personally made a public misstatement, violated a duty to disclose or engaged in manipulative trading activity, and not to those engaged in a broader scheme to defraud.” Simpson, at 1043. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. While the Supreme Court held that Rule 10b-5 liability “does not extend beyond the limits of § 10(b),” id., at 1046, it also cautioned “that secondary actors, other than the securities issuer, may be liable as primary violators under § 10(b) when all elements of the statute are satisfied,” id., at 1047. And while § 10(b) does not extend to the act of “merely ‘aiding and abetting’” a violation thereof, under Ninth Circuit authority one may be found to have primary liability under § 10(b) – even without making any statements – if they substantially participated or were intricately involved in preparing the fraudulent statements. Id., at 1048 (citing Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1061 n.5 (9th Cir. 2000).

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Muhammad v. County Bank-Class Action Defense Cases: FAA (Federal Arbitration Act) Governed Arbitration Clause Forbidding Class Actions Unconscionable New Jersey Supreme Court Holds

New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Provision in Arbitration Agreement Prohibiting Class Actions is Unconscionable but Severable so that Plaintiff may Pursue Class-Wide Arbitration

A part-time college student filed a class action against a lender for alleged violations of New Jersey consumer-fraud statutes; the defense moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claim based on a class-action bar in an arbitration agreement. Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, ___ A.2d ___, 2006 WL 2273448 (N.J. August 9, 2006). The student had received a short-term unsecured loan in the amount of $200 on May 23, 2003, which she promised to repay, together with a “finance charge” of $60, on June 13, 2003. This meant that the annual percentage rate of the loan was 608.33%. Slip Opn., at 4. She extended the loan twice; each extension required an agreement to pay a $60 finance charge. Unable to pay the loan, plaintiff filed a class action against the lender. _Id._, at 8.

The loan application signed by plaintiff contained an arbitration clause requiring that any dispute be arbitrated, and that barred “bring[ing], join[ing] or participat[ing] in any class action,” Slip Opn., at 5-6. Plaintiff also executed a “Loan Note and Disclosure” form that reiterated the prohibition against class actions. Id., at 6-7. The defense moved to compel arbitration; the trial court granted the motion and the appellate court affirmed. Id., at 9-10. The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed “whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that is part of a consumer contract of adhesion is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable because it forbids class-wide arbitration.” Slip Opn., at 2-3.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Eufaula Drugs v. Tmesys: Defense Removal Of Class Action Improper Because CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) Inapplicable And Insufficient Amount In Controversy Alabama Federal Court Holds

Federal Court Remands Putative Class Action Over Defense Objection Because at Least One Member of Class Must Satisfy Jurisdictional Requirement for Damages and Because Under Alabama State Law Class Action was Commenced Prior to CAFA Even Though Summons Issued After CAFA’s Effective Date Issues regarding removal and remand, and regarding federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Action of 2005 (CAFA), have been covered in several separate articles. On May 22, 2006, an Alabama federal court remanded to state court a putative class action over defense claims that the court had either diversity jurisdiction or jurisdiction under CAFA.

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

Beuster v. Equifax-Class Action Defense Issues: Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Does Not Preempt State Law Defamation Claim Maryland District Court Holds

Federal District Court Adopts “Statutory” Approach to Determining FCRA Preemption and Denies Defense Motion to Dismiss Consumer’s Common Law Defamation Claim on Grounds of FCRA Preemption

In Beuster v. Equifax Information Serv., 435 F.Supp.2d 471, 2006 WL 1669790 (D. Md. 2006), a Maryland federal court rejected a defense motion to dismiss a defamation claim against a lender on the grounds that it was preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. A consumer, Hans Beuster, failed to qualify for a loan to refinance his home because of a derogatory report in his credit history concerning a credit card account with Bank One. The report stated that Beuster’s owed more than $10,000 on his Bank One account and that it had been sent to collection; Beuster disputed the item, insisting that he never applied for or received the credit card in question. In January 2005, in response to his inquiry, Bank One told Beuster that it was unable to find his credit card application. Nonetheless, when Beuster contacted consumer reporting agency Experian to dispute the derogatory report, Experian responded in February 2005 that the information had been verified by Bank One. In March, Beuster sent letters to consumer reporting agencies Experian, Equifax and Trans Union – enclosing an affidavit and a police report – disputing the derogatory information. This time, Experian agreed to remove the account information from Beuster’s credit report; Equifax and Trans Union, however, responded that Bank One had verified the derogatory item and so they would continue to reflect it in their reports. Slip Opn., at 1-3.

Beuster filed suit in federal court against Bank One, Equifax and Trans Union: as to Bank One, Beuster alleged an FCRA violation and a claim for common law defamation. Slip Opn., at 3. The defense moved to dismiss the defamation claim on the grounds that section 1681t(b)(1)(F) “is a total bar to any state statutory or common law causes of action.” Id., at 6-7. The district court disagreed.

Class Action Court Decisions FCRA Class Actions Uncategorized

IBM Class Action Defense Case-Cooper v. IBM: Defense Prevails On Appeal From Class Action Judgment On Employees’ ERISA Claims Alleging Age Discrimination In Pension Plan Due To Time Value Of Money

In Case Of First Impression of Cash-Balance Pension Plans Under ERISA § 204(b)(1)(H)(i), Seventh Circuit Agrees with Defense that Time Value of Money is not Age Discrimination and Reverses Judgment in Favor of Class Action Plaintiffs

Older employees filed a class action against IBM alleging that its cash-balance defined-benefit pension plan violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibition against age discrimination. Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. August 7, 2006). Unlike a defined-contribution plan, “the personal account in a cash-balance plan is not separately funded”; rather, “IBM imputes value to the account in the form of ‘credits.'” Slip Opn., at 1. The district court rejected defense arguments that the plan did not violate ERISA because its terms are age-neutral, and entered judgment in favor of the class action plaintiffs because “younger employees receive interest credits for more years.” _Id._, at 2. The district court’s decision turned on its interpretation of the phrase “benefit accrual” under ERISA § 204(b)(1)(H)(i), which is not defined in ERISA or its regulations. _Id._, at 4. The district court used the definition of “accrued benefit” under ERISA, which is “an amount’ expressed in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age.'” _Id._ In so doing, “the rule against discrimination then refers not to what IBM puts into the plan, but what the employee takes out on retirement” and thus discriminates against older employees because younger workers will receive a greater payout because they benefit from compound interest. _Id._ “This approach treats the time value of money as age discrimination.” _Id._, at 4.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Federal Court Sua Sponte Removes Milberg Weiss From Steering Committee Of Class Action Transferred To Minnesota District Court By Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Panel—Class Action Defense Issues

Federal Court Holds Lawyer’s Failure to Disclose Investigation and Duty Court Owes Transferee Plaintiffs Requires Removal from Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and Notice to, and Consent of, Lawyer’s Individual Clients

Product liability actions – filed against Medtronic, Inc., concerning its implantable defibrillator – were transferred to a Minnesota federal court by the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Panel. Mitchell Breit, a partner in the New York office of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, was selected to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. Following the indictment of Milberg Weiss, the district court judge sua sponte initiated a telephone conference to discuss Breit’s continued involvement on the committee. In re Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillator Prod. Liab. Litig., 434 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Minn. 2006). Lead counsel and Breit requested that he be allowed to continue to serve; the court rejected their pleas “finding that it is in the best interest of the transferee plaintiffs that Mr. Breit and the Milberg Weiss firm be severed from the service” on the committee. Id., at 730.

The federal court reasoned a transferee judge “bears a particularly heavy burden to protect the transferee plaintiffs,” in addition to and separate from the duty attorneys owe their clients. Further, in selecting attorneys to serve on the steering committee, the Court directly investigated the ethics of every lawyer who offered to serve on it: “It asked each attorney seeking appointment to the [steering committee] to submit a letter touching his/her own ethics, and the ethical competence of his/her firm or professional association.” Id., at 730. The court noted with dissatisfaction that Briet’s December 2005 submittal failed to disclose the criminal investigation of the Milberg Weiss firm or its partners, and said nothing of the potential criminal charges until the federal criminal indictment issued. Id. Breit’s May 30, 2005 letter to the Court – sent in response to the Court’s sua sponte inquiry – failed to explain why the criminal investigation “was never disclosed to this Court until the indictment was handed up.” Id., at 731. The district court found this unacceptable, explaining at page 731:

Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

American Express Class Action Defense Case-Slayton v. American Express: Second Circuit Adopts De Novo Review Of Relation Back Rulings Under FRCP Rule 15 In Vacating Judgment In Favor Of Class Action Defense

District Court Granted Defense Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit, Seeking Damages Under § 10(b) and § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Common Law Fraud, but Second Circuit Reversed

A class action securities fraud lawsuit was filed against American Express and its subsidiaries, and against individual corporate officers of those companies (“Amex”), arising from high-risk junk bond investments and allegedly false statements concerning the profitability of those investments. Plaintiffs’ lawyer filed an amended class action complaint adding two causes of action; defense attorneys moved to dismiss the new claims as time-barred and the original claims on the merits. The district court granted the defense motion, finding that the new claims did not “relate back” to the filing of the original complaint, and that the original claims failed on the merits because plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded the requisite scienter. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded. Slayton v. American Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006).

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Skirchak v. Dynamics Research-Class Action Defense Cases: Employer’s Dispute Resolution Program Barring Class Action Claims For Alleged Violations Of Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Unconscionable Massachusetts District Court Holds

Federal District Court Refuses Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action and Enforce Arbitration Agreement Holding FAA (Federal Arbitration Act) Provision Barring Class Action FLSA Claims Unconscionable Under Specific Facts of Case

Employees filed a putative class action alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., for failure to pay overtime. The defense filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint and to enforce a enforce the company’s “dispute resolution program” governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which, in part, barred class actions. Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp., Inc., 432 F.Supp.2d 175 (D. Mass. 2006). (This class action defense has been raised in other cases discussed in separate articles.) The district court denied the defense motion, applying the well-settled rule that FAA agreements are subject to the standard defenses available in contract actions, including fraud, duress and unconscionability. Skirchak, at 178 (citing Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652 (1996)).

The court first addressed the language of FLSA itself, and acknowledged that Congress did not expressly guarantee the right to file class actions for FLSA claims. Skirchak, at 179 (citing Kuehner v. Dickinson & Co., 84 F.3d 316, 319-20 (9th Cir.1996)). But the court believed that the fact FLSA provides for collective actions, see 29 U.S.C. § 216, meant that Congress “implicitly” intended to allow such class actions, Skirchak, at 179.

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Wang v. Chinese Daily News: Class Action Reporters Owed Overtime Under Federal FLSA And Defense Vacation “Buy Back” Policy Violated State Law And Required Payment At Employees’ Hourly Rate Of Pay California Court Holds

Federal District Court Rejects Defense to Class Action Claims Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and State Law Claims, and Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Class

News reporters filed in California federal court a class action against their employer that alleged numerous violations of federal and state labor laws, as well as California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. (unfair competition). Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 1663638 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2006). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court denied the defense motion and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. In so doing, the court _inter alia_ rejected the defense argument that the reporters were exempt under the FLSA’s “creative professional exemption,” and ruled against the defense on the applicable statute of limitations governing California Labor Code § 226.7 claims (meal and rest periods). The opinion is quite detailed; this article discusses only some of the court’s holdings.

The employer had a policy that allowed vacation time to accrue and to carryover into following years, provided that “accumulated vacation days cannot exceed 30 days” and that “[m]oney shall be paid for unused vacation days exceeding 30 days at $64 per day ” Slip Opn., at 3. California law permits employers to adopt “no additional accrual” policies, so the question before the federal court was whether $64 per day was lawful or whether the employer was required to “buy back” the vacation time at the employees’ hourly rate of pay. The court concluded that this question turned on whether the “unused vacation days” should be deemed “vested” or “accrued.” Id., at 4. The court suggested that if the employer had followed its vacation policy then it would have been lawful; however, the evidence before the court established that employees routinely accrued upwards of 70 days of vacation and held that the in “actual practice,” then, the employer treated the vacation time as “accrued.” Id., at 5. Accordingly, the employer was required to buy back the vacation days at the employees’ hourly rate of pay. Id., at 6.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Smith v. Superior Court: Employee Is “Discharged” Under California Labor Laws Not Only By Involuntary Termination But also By Completion Of Specific Assignment

California Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Defense Argument that Employees were not Discharged by Completion of Job Assignment for Which They were Hired

A class action was filed on behalf of models that worked specific projects but were not paid immediately after the projects ended. Defense attorneys argued that the employees were not “discharged” within the meaning of California Labor Code § 201 because they were not fired or otherwise involuntarily terminated. Smith v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 77, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 (Cal. July 10, 2006). Plaintiff was hired as a “hair model” – an audience watched a stylist color and style her hair, she walked the runway, and she remained until defendant told her that she could leave. Plaintiff was to be paid $500, but defendant waited more than two months to pay her the money owed. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging various causes of action, including violations of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 203. Slip Opn., at 2.

Section 201 of the Labor Code provides that if an employer “discharges” an employee, wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. Under section 203, an employer’s willful failure to pay wages to a “discharged” employee in accordance with section 203 subjects the employer to penalties. Slip Opn., at 1.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized