Litigation and Trial - Max Kennerly : Philadelphia Trial Lawyer Max Kennerly : Business and Commercial Litigation : Civil Attorney : The Beasley Firm : Philadelphia Pennsylvania

Felix Salmon at Reuters caught something interesting:

[T]he facts of the case are pretty clear. The relationship between JP Morgan and Televisa goes back decades, and so JP Morgan was the natural choice for Televisa to turn to when it decided to buy a fiber-optic cable company called Bestel for $325 million, $225 million of which was to come from Televisa subsidiary Cablevisión.

JP Morgan intended to syndicate the loan, but the timing was bad: the deal closed in 2008, when credit markets were all but closed, and as a result JP Morgan ended up owning all of it. After an attempt by Televisa to help JP Morgan syndicate the loan fell through, JP Morgan then turned to Inbursa, Carlos Slim’s bank.

This was not an obvious choice from the point of view of serving one’s client. Slim and Cablevisión compete fiercely in the telecommunications space, where Slim is the dominant monopolist and Cablevisión is selling telephony and internet access in competition with him. And the rivalry is all the tougher due to the history between the two groups: Slim used to be a major shareholder in Televisa, and to this day Inbursa owns a 22% stake in Cablevisión.

Now there were two ways of selling this loan: JP Morgan could either assign it to Inbursa, which would require Cablevisión’s permission, or else it could participate it to Inbursa, which would not. At first, JPM tried to assign the loan, but unsurprisingly Cablevisión refused to grant their permission for that deal to happen.

You can imagine what happened next: JP Morgan dressed up the "assignment" as a "participation." As Judge Rakoff described it in his order,

JP Morgan, acting in bad faith, used the guise of a purported “participation” to effectuate what is in substance a forbidden assignment, with unusual provisions demanded by Inbursa that are calculated to give Inbursa exactly what the assignment veto in the Credit Agreement was designed to prevent. JP Morgan thereby violated, at a minimum, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing automatically implied by law in the Credit Agreement…

Televisa's request for a preliminary injunction halting the agreement was thus granted.

Salmon wonders what JPMorgan's response to all these allegations is:

So for JP Morgan’s side of the story, all I have to go on is their 40-page memorandum of law in the case, which is quite narrowly legalistic, which was roundly rejected by Rakoff, and which obviously can’t respond to Rakoff’s ruling since it was filed before Rakoff made his ruling.

Since JPMorgan moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, they, like Televisa, were entitled to submit affidavits in support of their position, and it appears they submitted declarations from "Sheldon L. Pollock" and "Jaquelina Truzzell." Both declarations have been unsealed by Judge Rakoff's order, but neither is on the docket.

I doubt the declarations say much; JPMorgan's memorandum of law primarily references the Pollock and Truzzell declarations when discussing side matters, like telephone calls and Televisa's motives for opposing the assignment / participation. Truzzell apparently affirms there are "no side agreements" with Inbursa and that JPMorgan would not release "confidential" information, but that's it. There's nothing about how JPMorgan came to participation terms with Inbursa that, at least on their face, entitle Inbursa to a treasure trove of information about Televisa, far more than provided by JPMorgan's standard participation agreement.

Which I find telling. Though the standard response of most defendants is — for tactical reasons like avoiding getting pinned down to a particular version of events — to "deny and delay" rather than to come forth with an affirmative opposition, under the facts here, JPMorgan really needed to make a better showing. Here's the full quote (excerpted above) from Judge Rakoff's order:

In opposing a preliminary injunction, JPMorgan argues that the Participation Agreement is technically consistent with the Credit Agreement. Superficially, this may be correct. For example, with respect to Cablevisión’s concerns about confidential information, the Credit Agreement permits disclosure of information about the borrower, not just to assignees (who can be vetoed) but also to participants (who cannot), provided that such information is given on a confidential basis. Credit Agreement § 9.16(f)(i). This includes “all information received from the Borrower . . . relating to the Borrower, any of its Related Parties or their respective businesses.” Id. § 9.16. Similarly, there is no express restriction in the Credit Agreement on providing a participant with its pro-rata share of fees received by the lender or an option of first refusal for any further transfer of the loan. Finally, under the Credit Agreement, assignment of the loan without borrower consent is expressly permitted when there is an Event of Default. Id. § 9.04(b)(i).

But this narrow focus obscures the gist of Cablevisión’s argument, which is that JPMorgan, acting in bad faith, used the guise of a purported “participation” to effectuate what is in substance a forbidden assignment, with unusual provisions demanded by Inbursa that are calculated to give Inbursa exactly what the assignment veto in the Credit Agreement was designed to prevent. JPMorgan thereby violated, at a minimum, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing automatically implied by law in the Credit Agreement.

The Court agrees.

JPMorgan could have done more factually, rather than just legally, to rebut the appearance of bad faith. But they didn't; they just argued that they were entitled to do what they did, rather than show that their conduct with Inbursa was appropriate.

Such silence could be, in part, an attempt by JPMorgan to protect Inbursa's confidences, which arguably would have been appropriate. (I say "arguably" because the totality of the circumstances here — primarily Inbursa's attempt to negotiate terms more favorable than those typically provided by a participation agreement — imply that Inbursa has waived its right to keep those discussions confidential from Televisa.) But there's nothing on the docket reflecting an attempt to have Judge Rakoff review any pertinent materials in camera, and so there's no reason for us to speculate that JPMorgan's silence was a product of confidentiality.

It thus may be more appropriate to speculate that JPMorgan's silence was the product of not having a good defense. Again: facts win cases. "Technically consistent" legal arguments don't.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[UPDATE: The WSJ Law Blog has copies of the letters submitted to the Delaware Chancery Court. Professor Hazard is undoubtedly one of the pre-eminent experts in the field, and he makes a compelling argument that Cravath violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Yet, showing a violation of the Rules is not enough — to disqualify counsel under Chancellor Chandler's standard, Airgas will have to show the violation will "materially advance" Air Product's position or undermine the fair and efficient administration of justice. So far, I haven't seen anything demonstrating that. The vague references made so far to Cravath's insider knowledge of Airgas's finances isn't enough, since a firewall within Cravath can likely cure that problem.

UPDATE II: As predicted, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to enter an injunction against Cravath, and the Delaware Chancery Court did not disqualify them.]

As has been reported all over the legal media,

Industrial gas producer Airgas filed suit against Cravath, Swaine & Moore on Friday over the firm's role as legal adviser to rival Air Products on that company's $5.1 billion bid for Airgas.

... Air Products filed a complaint on Thursday in Delaware's Chancery Court against Airgas, claiming that the smaller company improperly blocked its board of directors from considering previous Air Products takeover offers. Cravath litigation partners Francis Barron, David Marriott and Gary Bornstein are representing Air Products in the Delaware litigation along with local counsel Kenneth Nachbar (he of sports gambling notoriety) and Jon Abramczyk from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell. (Click here for the Chancery Court complaint, courtesy of The Times' Dealbook.)

Airgas responded by retaining Cozen O'Connor chairman Stephen Cozen, litigation chair Jeffrey Weil and litigation partner Thomas Wilkinson Jr., for a civil suit against Cravath in state court in Pennsylvania. In the suit, Airgas claims that Cravath has a conflict of interest and breached its fiduciary duty by representing Air Products because it previously advised Airgas on several financings. According to Airgas' complaint against Cravath, the company has had a client relationship with the firm for 10 years and has paid Cravath about $2 million, including a $320,000 payment last October.

There's an obvious question dangling over the Pennsylvania suit filed by Airgas: what basis — or power — does a state court in Pennsylvania have to preclude a New York law firm from representing a Delaware-registered company in Delaware state court litigation against another Delaware-registered company?

Unsurprisingly, that's just what Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (Commerce Court) Judge Albert Sheppard Jr. wondered before denying Airgas' petition for a temporary restraining order:

In essence, I would be saying to a lawyer you can’t go to Delaware and represent your client. I find that difficult. I don’t want to do that.

Judge Sheppard only had it for two weeks, though, since Cravath, like virtually every out-of-state defendant, promptly removed the case to Federal court, i.e. the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it was assigned to Judge Eduardo Robreno (whose work in the Philadelphia Inquirer bankruptcy I've covered before).

Cravath (represented by a team at Conrad O'Brien*) has responded to the suit and has asked Judge Robreno to abstain from hearing the case at all:

First, whatever this Court may ultimately decide with respect to Airgas’s claim for money damages, Airgas’s request for a preliminary injunction is the functional equivalent of a motion to disqualify Cravath from appearing before the Delaware Chancery Court. With all due respect, Cravath submits that a motion precluding counsel from appearing in Delaware Chancery Court is more appropriately decided by Chancellor William B. Chandler III, who presides over the firstfiled Delaware litigation. Just as this Court has full authority over proceedings here, judicial comity warrants according Chancellor Chandler due authority over proceedings in his courtroom. ...

Second, the Delaware Chancery Court is aptly suited to decide the key issue presented by Airgas’s petition to this Court—whether Cravath should be disqualified. Indeed, the dispute concerning Cravath’s ability to represent Air Products is intertwined with the merits of the (firstfiled) Delaware litigation. ...

Third, whereas this Court’s ruling on Airgas’s petition for preliminary relief would be, by definition, provisional, the Delaware Chancery Court’s ruling on the question of whether Cravath should be disqualified will be a final decision on the merits.

(From Cravath's brief, available on RECAP.)

It's hard to argue with that; whatever the merits of the conflict-of-interest allegations, it seems they all relate to the Delaware litigation and so should be decided there.

Of course, there's a reason Cravath wants the case decided in Delaware's Chancery Court (and why Airgas wants it decided elsewhere). As Francis G.X. Pileggi notes:

[Airgas'] separate suit alleging a conflict was filed in Philadelphia. One might speculate that the suit was not filed in Delaware and it was not filed as a motion to disqualify, because the Delaware decisions recently have not granted many motions to disqualify. See, e.g., cases summarized on this blog here.

Indeed, one might speculate that. More on that in a moment.

Back in Delaware, it seems a war of correspondence has broken out:

Airgas (which has retained Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz) began the exchange of correspondence Monday, when it sent a letter to Chancellor William Chandler at Delaware's Court of Chancery ... In its Monday letter to Chandler, Airgas argues that a Pennsylvania courtroom is the proper place for the Cravath hearing. In response, Air Products and local counsel Kenneth Nachbar of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell drafted their own letter to Chandler, urging him to decide on Cravath's fate in Delaware and accusing Airgas of trying to "circumvent" Chandler's authority by suing in Pennsylvania.

Airgas also has enlisted a legal ethics expert who has issued an opinion letter in which he claims Cravath was working under "a clear and serious conflict of interest" while it was helping Air Products formulate its takeover bid last fall, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Am Law Daily. In his letter, Geoffrey Hazard Jr., a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, says Cravath ... violated the so-called "hot potato" rule, which holds that a firm cannot get out of a conflict simply by dropping one client on short notice, Hazard wrote.

Like I wrote before, the hot potato rule lives. Here's a recent recitation of the rule:

Courts that have considered the issue have held that a firm will not be allowed to drop a client in order to shift resolution of the conflicts question from Rule 1.7 dealing with current clients, to the more lenient standard in Rule 1.9 dealing with former clients.

El Camino Res., LTD. v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, No. 1:07-cv-598, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67813, at *39–40 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2007).

On the surface, that's not good for Cravath — if Chancellor Chandler applies a similar analysis, then Cravath will be evaluated as if it was simultaneously representing Airgas and Air Products on both sides of the litigation, which is expressly prohibited by the Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York rules.

But the final analysis is a practical one:

The finding of an ethical violation, however, does not automatically require disqualification. The court should order disqualification only where some specifically identifiable impropriety has actually occurred and the balance of relevant factors requires vindication of the integrity of the legal profession over defendant's interest in retaining counsel of its choice.

Id.

Returning again to why Cravath wants the issue decided in Delaware by Chancellor Chandler, it bears mention here that Chancellor Chandler took a strongly disqualification-unfriendly view in a similar case a year ago, in which Dow Chemical attempted to disqualify Wachtell from representing Rohm and Haas:

I am not persuaded that Wachtell’s access to this information will materially advance Rohm and Haas’s position or undermine the fair and efficient administration of justice. Dow’s defense to specific performance is that conditions in the market and within Dow have changed significantly since December 2008 and that it is no longer feasible for the merger to close. Dow has failed to convince me that the information Wachtell had access to regarding Dow’s strategies and asset values in 2006 and 2007 will substantially advance the interest of Rohm and Haas in this litigation. Additionally, Wachtell has assured the Court that its attorneys who obtained confidential Dow information have not and will not share Dow’s client confidences with the Wachtell attorneys working on this matter. While Dow is correct that the ethical rules impute knowledge of one attorney to other attorneys in the firm, the issue before the Court is not whether there was a violation of the ethical rules. To justify disqualification, the Court must find that allowing the representation to continue would threaten the fair and efficient administration of justice, a threat that is greatly reduced by a credible representation to the Court that the firm will ensure that the attorneys working on this matter do not have access to Dow’s client confidences. Dow has failed to point to information or confidences obtained by Wachtell in its 2006-2007 work for Dow that will have a material influence on the proceedings before me today.

Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 4309-CC, 2009 WL 445609, at *3 (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, 2009)(also courtesy of Pileggi).

Truth be told, there's not much distinguishing the Rohm and Haas v. Dow situation from the present case with Cravath, except for the "hot potato" rule aspect, given how Cravath's work for Airgas was much more recent than Wachtell's work was for Dow. Indeed, it seems Cravath's work for Airgas unambiguously overlapped its work for Air Products.

As noted above, though, a mere violation of the rules isn't enough; the question is what prejudice the former client will suffer and if that prejudice can be avoided. Cravath's work for Airgas was comparatively small, and if Cravath sets up an ethical firewall that keeps the former Airgas attorneys away from the Air Products lawsuit, that will likely be enough to satisfy Chancellor Chandler.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Warren Buffet often gets credit for coining the phrase "skin in the game" — even though it's not his — and his definition is, shall we say, on the money. "Skin in the game" makes a difference:

Mutual funds whose directors have "skin in the game" significantly outperform their competitors, according to a study by Syracuse University Prof. David Weinbaum. His results confirm the commonly held belief that directors who are invested in the funds that they oversee act as better stewards than directors who don't have any money on the line.

It's not the first time Prof. Weinbaum has shown that.

I'm a big believer of "skin in the game" — virtually all of my clients are on a contingent fee — and have written before about how contingency fees reduce frivolous litigation and how third-party investment in lawsuits can level the playing field against well-funded defendants.

So I was happy to read Why Investment Bankers Should Have (Some) Personal Liability at The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation:

We have written a short paper for a symposium on the work of Adolf Berle in which we advocate reintroducing some measure of personal liability for bankers, as was the case in Berle’s day, and indeed up through the 1980’s. We describe in our paper the broad outlines of a proposal to impose some measure of personal liability for a bank’s debts on the most highly paid bankers. The proposal would revive two mechanisms that imposed personal liability in an earlier era: general partnership, which was common for investment banks prior to the 1980s, and assessable stock, which was relatively common in corporations including some commercial banks through the 1930s.

It is difficult to imagine the investment banking business returning to the partnerships of old. General partnership – with the illiquidity and liability it imposes on general partners and the constraints it imposes on a bank’s ability to raise capital – probably will not be considered a viable option. It is also difficult to imagine corporations in the financial services industry issuing assessable stock to all of their shareholders or regulators seeking to require them to do so.

Our objective is to design another way to impose some of the risks of unlimited liability on the most highly compensated managers and other decision makers at investment banks and other financial services and trading firms. We seek to do so without requiring the firm itself to switch to general partnership form or to make any other change in its organizational or capital structure. We discuss below two alternatives, each one based on historical precedent.

We could argue all day about whether the theoretical incentives investment bankers have are good enough to keep them from crashing the whole financial system — a whole cottage industry has developed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Business Week to do just that. But the facts are undeniable: our banking industry is broken, dangerously so.

I don't see how we can fix that without giving the bankers some "skin in the game."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

That's one way to lose millions of dollars:

Disbarred lawyer Kenneth Heller's refusal to turn over files in a matter that ultimately was resolved with a $3.7 million settlement was "symptomatic" of a 24-year record of "utter contempt for the judicial system," Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein wrote, quoting from an opinion of the appeals court in Manhattan that disbarred Heller in 2004.

Bernstein's ruling in In re Ruby G. Emanuel, 97-44969, denied Heller any share in the $1.2 million the judge had awarded to the law firm of Jacoby & Meyers, which took over from Heller the wrongful death case of James Emanuel, a stevedore who was fatally injured in a 1992 accident at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

...

Following Heller's disbarment [for misconduct in an unrelated case], Ms. Emanuel retained Jacoby & Meyers to handle the retrial in state court.

The law firm asked Heller to forward his files in the matter, but Heller refused, even though, Judge Bernstein noted, "terminated lawyers normally send their files promptly to new counsel to be sure that the interests of the client are protected."

In resisting the surrender of his files, Bernstein recounted, Heller provided different estimates of the value of his work for Ms. Emanuel.

During Jacoby & Meyers' 2 1/2 year quest to secure the files, Heller offered various explanations as to what had happened to them -- lost in a house upstate, damaged by a flood, discarded by workers -- as the case was passed among five judges in Manhattan and the Bronx.

Eventually, the court declared Heller in contempt and issued sanctions, causing Heller to flee, after which deputies raided his office looking for the files, to no avail.

$3.7 million doesn't come close to the actual damages. The decedent was paralyzed from the neck down after a 45-foot fall and spent 20 months in the hospital before he died. In the original trial (in which Heller represented the plaintiff), a jury unsurprisingly awarded $25 million.

But because Heller didn't turn over the file:

Jacoby & Meyers only had the record on appeal to work with in negotiating a settlement, Michael S. Feldman, the firm's lead attorney on the case, said in an interview.

Heller's files consisted of 43 boxes of material, while the record on appeal filled only two boxes, Feldman said. The defendant's records in the underlying death case had been destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center where its law firm, Hill Betts & Nash, had its offices, Feldman added.

"We had to proceed without videos and photographs of Mr. Emanuel" who was paralyzed from the neck down as a result of a 45-foot fall as he was repairing a barge, Feldman said.

Switching attorneys in the middle of contingent fee litigation can cause a dicey situation. It is never easy for the exiting attorney — after pouring years of blood, sweat, tears and money into the case — to set the file down and walk away without securing a fee, as they would before voluntarily referring a case to another attorney.

But walk away they must. An attorney can't dangle the client's case over the new counsel's head as a negotiation tool.

The flip side is that, if the lawyer does the right thing and ensures the timely transfer of representation, the law will protect them. At the resolution of a case, prior contingent fee attorneys are generally entitled to recoup their reasonable costs and the quantum meruit — the fair value — of the work they did.

Except, however, where the attorney has breached their fiduciary duties to the client, in which case most states will deny the award of fees. Indeed, the issue isn't just a concern for contingent fee attorneys: in some states, if a professional breaches their fiduciary duties, the court can order the disgorgement of any fees previously paid.

Some people need to learn lessons the hard way. For the rest of us, take note: there's millions of reasons not to play games with client's files.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I’ve written before, health care is “one of the ugliest businesses in America.” Health care litigation is often just as contentious.

Today’s example comes from Robotics v. Deviedma, No. 09-cv-3552, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112077 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2009), which denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The facts:

Health Robotics, S.r.L. ("HRSRL") is an Italian company that designs, develops, markets and licences robotic medical preparation products. Plaintiff, Devon Robotics, signed two agreements with HRSRL for the distribution of two robotic medication preparation products for hospitals and health care facilities, i.v.Station and CytoCare. … At the time these agreements were negotiated and signed, Mr. DeViedma, one of the Defendants, served as General Counsel for HRSRL. These contracts between Devon Robotics and HRSRL contained an identical arbitration clause which requires all disputes arising from the agreement to be arbitrated in Switzerland.

Plaintiffs claim that on March 1, 2009, Mr. DeViedma was hired as Devon Robotics' Chief Operating Officer ("COO"). In his position as COO, DeViedma was solely responsible for the management of sales, marketing, support and installation of CytoCare robots on Devon's behalf. All of Devon Robotics' employees reported directly to DeViedma. Additionally, Mr. DeViedma served as the primary contact between Devon and HRSRL.

* * *

In December 2008, Devon Robotics began negotiating a contract with McKesson Corporation, another defendant, which would give McKesson the right to distribute CytoCare within a certain territory in the United States. DeViedma played a key role in negotiating the contract as Devon Robotics' COO. On December 22, 2008, Devon Robotics and McKesson entered into a Confidential Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement prohibiting McKesson from divulging or using any confidential information for any purpose other than analyzing its deal with Devon. After executing the agreement, McKesson engaged in extensive due diligence. According to Plaintiffs, around March 2009, McKesson and Devon reached an oral agreement regarding the material terms of the Exclusive Distribution, Licensing, Services and Support Agreement. The only thing that was needed to finalize the agreement was to allow McKesson's due diligence of HRSRL in Italy. However, DeViedma, in his capacity as an officer of HRSRL, refused to permit McKesson representatives to visit Italy and complete the due diligence.

Later, after McKesson and Devon Robotics failed to come to an agreement, HRSRL terminated the CytoCare Agreement with Devon Robotics on July 30, 2009. Then on August 10, 2009, McKesson and HRSRL entered into a five year agreement granting McKesson distribution rights with regard to CytoCare in various areas in North America which had previously been controlled by Devon Robotics.

Naturally, Devon sued everyone, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with current and prospective contractual relations, defamation, and conspiracy.

Defendants first moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss on the grounds that the Devon/HRSRL agreements compelled arbitration:

[A]s this Court noted in Miron, the presumption of arbitrability has never been extended to claims by or against non-signatories. Miron v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 342 F. Supp. 2d 324 (E.D. Pa. 2004); see, e.g., Medtronic Ave Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 367 F.3d 147, 100 Fed. Appx. 865 (3rd Cir. 2004) (quoting Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress International, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639, 642 (7th Cir. 1993)). Because arbitration is a matter of contract, exceptional circumstances must apply before a court will impose a contractual agreement to arbitrate on a non-contracting party. AT&T Tech., 475 U.S. at 650. However, as this Court again noted in Miron, there are five established theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreements of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Thomson-CFS v. American Arbitration Association, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir. 1995). Furthermore, where the party seeking enforcement of the arbitration clause is a willing non-signatory an alternative theory of reverse estoppel may apply. Thomson-CFS, 64 F.3d at 779.

The only theory under which DeViedma may be able to enforce the arbitration clause is the alternative estoppel theory. The alternative estoppel theory binds a signatory to arbitrate at a non-signatory's insistence where there is an obvious and close nexus between the non-signatories and the contract or the contracting parties. E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199. The two-part test for alternative estoppel requires a court to determine whether there is a 'close relationship between the entities involved,' and examine the 'relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory's obligations and duties in the contract.' E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199 (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779); see also Bannett, 331 F. Supp. 2d at 360. To satisfy the second part of the test, the non-signatory seeking enforcement of an arbitration agreement must show that the claims against them are 'intimately founded in and intertwined with' the underlying obligations of the contract to which they were not a party. E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199 (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779).

The essential question in situations such as these is whether plaintiffs would have an independent right to recover against the non-signatory defendants even if the contract containing the arbitration clause were void. 'The plaintiff's actual dependence on the underlying contract in making out the claim against the nonsignatory defendant is therefore always the sine qua non of an appropriate situation for applying equitable estoppel.' Price Plaintiffs v. Humana Ins. Co., 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) (rev'd on other grounds, PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401, 123 S. Ct. 1531, 155 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2002)). In In re Humana, the Eleventh Circuit held that equitable estoppel was inappropriate where plaintiffs brought a RICO suit against a non-signatory defendant, because the RICO claims were based on a statutory remedy apart from any available remedy for breach of the underlying contract. In re Humana, 285 F.3d at 976."

Robotics v. Deviedma, No. 09-cv-3552, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112077, at *11–13 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2009). Three strikes, one hit for the defendants:

It is not proper to dismiss this claim in favor of arbitration because the breach of fiduciary duty claim does not arise out of the various agreements between Devon Robotics and HRSRL. …

Plaintiffs' claim of tortious interference with current and prospective contractual relations is not subject to the arbitration clauses in the various agreements between Devon Robotics and HRSRL. Count V of Plaintiffs claim is based on DeViedma's alleged interference with various validation contracts. These contracts are not intimately intertwined with the i.v.Station and CytoCare agreements. …

Plaintiffs' claim of defamation is not subject to the arbitration clauses in the various agreements between Devon Robotics and HRSRL. …

To the extent that Plaintiffs' claim of conspiracy is based on the termination of the CytoCare agreement, their claim is dismissed. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that the Defendants conspired to wrongfully terminate the CytoCare agreement. The determination as to whether the agreement was wrongfully terminated will be intimately related to the terms of the agreement. Additionally, there is an extremely close nexus between the non-signatory parties and Devon Robotics.

Id. at 13–16.

Defendants next moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims on the merits, with three strikes (on the breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with current contractual relations, and defamation claims) and hits on the rest. Most notably, “Devon Robotics has pled that it had several validation contracts with different hospitals, that DeViedma purposefully interfered with those contracts for his own benefit, without justification, and that as a result, Devon lost substantial amounts of business. These pleadings are sufficient to establish a claim for tortious interference with existing contractual relations.”

Though the Court “grant[ed] Plaintiffs leave to amend their tortious interference with prospective contractual relations to include any claims related to the McKesson negotiations,” it added the caveat that “Although the Court granted leave to amend the tortious interference claim and Plaintiffs may choose to attempt to amend their conspiracy claim, it should be noted that the Court likely lacks jurisdiction over any underlying torts asserted in support of the conspiracy claim based on the CytoCare or i.v.Station agreements due to the arbitration clauses in the agreements.”

A big win for Devon Robotics and a guide for future plaintiffs — in the face of an arguably applicable arbitration agreement, they kept alive the core of their suit: breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and defamation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[Updated to clarify a distinction between securities suits and investment company act suits.]

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jones v. Harris. Briefly, the Oakmark complex of mutual funds "hired" Harris Associates as investment advisers, paying Harris 1% (per year) of the first $2 billion of the fund’s assets, 0.9% of the next $1 billion, 0.8% of the next $2 billion, and 0.75% of anything over $5 billion. I write "hired" because the situation is murky: Harris is directly affiliated with Oakmark. Importantly, the fee charged by Harris to Oakmark is more than double the fee it charges unaffiliated mutual funds.

Plaintiffs are investors in Oakmark funds who sued Harris under a variety of claims, including a claim that Harris's fees were "excessive," in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.

Section 36(b), which was added in 1970, is almost poetic in its ambiguity:

For the purposes of this subsection, the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company, or by the security holders thereof, to such investment adviser or any affiliated person of such investment adviser. An action may be brought under this subsection by the Commission, or by a security holder of such registered investment company on behalf of such company, against such investment adviser . . . . With respect to any such action the following provisions shall apply:

(1) It shall not be necessary to allege or prove that any defendant engaged in personal misconduct, and the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving a breach of fiduciary duty.

(2) In any such action approval by the board of directors of such investment company of such compensation or payments, or of contracts or other arrangements providing for such compensation or payments, and ratification or approval of such compensation or payments, or of contracts or other arrangements providing for such compensation or payments, by the shareholders of such investment company, shall be given such consideration by the court as is deemed appropriate under all the circumstances. . . .

In essence, the statute says only that the plaintiff can recover against the investment adviser by "proving a breach of fiduciary duty." Subsections (1) and (2) fill in a little detail — i.e., the investor need not prove "personal misconduct" and the court shall "consider" board of directors and/or shareholder ratification — but that's it.

Congress might as well have written, "investors can sue if investment advisers do something bad, but 'bad' doesn't necessarily mean really bad."

Twenty-seven years ago, faced with the same opaque language, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals came up with its own standard for "excessive fee" claims:

[T]he test is essentially whether the fee schedule represents a charge within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm’s-length in the light of all of the surrounding circumstances.

[and]

[t]o be guilty of a violation of §36(b) . . . the adviser-manager must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.

Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923, 928 (2d Cir. 1982).

Last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals came up with a different standard for "excessive fee" claims:

Having had another chance to study this question, we now disapprove the Gartenberg approach. A fiduciary duty differs from rate regulation. A fiduciary must make full disclosure and play no tricks but is not subject to a cap on compensation. The trustees (and in the end investors, who vote with their feet and dollars), rather than a judge or jury, determine how much advisory services are worth. ...

Federal securities laws, of which the Investment Company Act is one component, work largely by requiring disclosure and then allowing price to be set by competition in which investors make their own choices. Plaintiffs do not contend that Harris Associates pulled the wool over the eyes of the disinterested trustees or otherwise hindered their ability to negotiate a favorable price for advisory services. The fees are not hidden from investors—and the Oakmark funds’ net return has attracted new investment rather than driving investors away.

In short, the Seventh Circuit held that, regardless of what the Investment Company Act says, investment advisers don't have a fiduciary duty to investment companies; instead, they're held to the same fraud and misrepresentation standards as total strangers.

The Seventh Circuit opinion was remarkable not only because it eviscerated the Investment Company Act — which clearly does not require personal misconduct like "pulling the wool over [investors'] eyes" — but also because it produced a sharp disagreement on the underlying economics between Judges Easterbrook and Posner, two of the most notable adherents to the conservative "law and economics" doctrine.

It goes almost without saying that there are reasonable arguments in favor of both the investors and the investment advisers. The statute is ambiguous; there's no clear answer for what the standard "should" be in these cases, but there's also little doubt that something has gone awry with investment adviser fees in the context of affiliated mutual funds.

I write "almost," however, because Professor John Coates of Harvard Law School wants nothing to do with reasonable arguments:

How can such cases make it to the highest court in the land? Plaintiffs’ lawyers are able to file these cases because of three features of the US legal system. First, investors are dispersed, and cannot easily work together to protect their own interests. Collective action costs are often identified as a reason that investors cannot protect themselves from predatory institutions – and sometimes that is true. But those same costs also make it impossible for investors to control the lawyers who nominally represent them. Investors cannot stop lawyers from using weak or even frivolous claims to extract rich legal fees. Nor need lawyers even listen to investors with the most at stake in a case. Unlike the advisers, the lawyers are not required to negotiate with independent trustees, or to submit their lawsuit for approval to the investors. Once lawyers have appointed themselves as investor guardians, they face little competition – again, unlike the advisers, who compete with other advisers to attract new investments.

In Professor Coates' world, a lawyer can, on her own, file a "weak or even frivolous" case and "extract rich legal fees" without any involvement of the actual investors.

What a great racket! Lawyers must be filing these cases all the time and collecting big fat checks for nothing.

Or maybe fewer than 200 securities class actions are filed every year, and maybe only half of them settle for any amount, with the other half of investors and their lawyers recovering nothing for their losses.

Since Coates has never represented any investors in a lawsuit, much less represented a class of investors on a contingent fee, I suppose he needs a few reminders on how the process works.

"Jones" in Jones v. Harris is an investor, not a lawyer. Only investors can bring lawsuits and they can only win if they prove every element of their case. Like I wrote above, most of these cases are sent to the rubbish heap without any payment.

If the investors are in the lucky half that survive years of litigating over dismissal (for reference, Jones v. Harris was filed five years ago and is still at the dismissal stage), the court will carefully analyze which investor should represent the class as the lead plaintiff, giving preference to the investors with the "most at stake in a case." Nonetheless, every investor with a stake in the case, even if not the lead plaintiff, can participate in, and object to any part of, the process, including any settlement and any award of attorneys' fees.

Unsurprisingly, three-quarters of successful investor lawsuits are lead by large institutional investors (p. 27) such as public and union pensions, the ones with "the most at stake in the case."

Coates thus has it backwards: it's not "impossible for investors to control the lawyers who nominally represent them," it's impossible for lawyers to bring and win a lawsuit without the participation and support of the investors, particularly the ones with "the most at stake."

Indeed, in most potential investor class action cases, it's impossible for the lawyers to collect any fee at all: you never know when a court will read an act that says "it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that any defendant engaged in personal misconduct" and nonetheless require the investor prove personal misconduct. Based on this week's oral argument, it looks like the Supreme Court will do just that, leaving the investors and their lawyers with nothing after five years of litigation.

So much for a "rich legal fee." And that's the greatest irony: in the nearly forty years since Section 36(b) was passed, not one single court (see pp. 3–4) has ever held an investment adviser's fee was "excessive."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have no problem criticizing Bank of America for deceptive conduct or blaming Wachtell for the failure of a legal stategy, but there's nothing obviously wrong with this:

Eric Roth, a litigation partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, apparently was telling the Bank of America Corp. leadership one story about how difficult it would be to escape from the merger with Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., while singing quite a different tune to the federal government.

E-mails from Roth and in-house lawyers at the bank were among documents released last week from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is investigating the merger. Roth and Bank of America representatives did not return calls for comment on this story.

The e-mails show that early on the morning of Dec. 19 Roth advised the bank's chief executive, Ken Lewis, and its interim general counsel, Brian Moynihan, on how difficult and financially risky it would be to try to invoke a so-called MAC -- or material adverse change -- clause, which would allow the bank to get out of the merger with Merrill.

But another e-mail from associate general counsel Teresa Brenner to Moynihan, sent several hours later and on the same day as Roth's e-mail, says, "Eric made a very strong case as to why there was a MAC" during a conference call with some officials from the Federal Reserve.

The e-mails appear to confirm previous Corporate Counsel stories that the bank was telling federal regulators that it wanted to declare the MAC, even though its own lawyers and leaders knew that legally it probably could not succeed. If the bank were to make public its MAC threat, government regulators have said Merrill would have collapsed, causing severe damage to the shaky U.S. financial system at the time.

Although it's not a given that the Rules of Professional Conduct would apply to an argument before the Federal Reserve, let's assume that, by way of Rule 3.9, all the basic duties of merit, candor and fairness apply.

Under those rules, there's nothing wrong with advocating on behalf of your client an argument you believe "probably could not succeed." There are two sides to every story, and at least two interpretations of every legal issue. The United States uses an adversarial legal system precisely so that these stories and interpretations can be fully developed, critiqued, and challenged.

Indeed, it's clear the Federal Reserve's lawyers knew how weak Bank of America's case was:

Brenner's e-mail states that all questions other than one came from a "prickly" Thomas Baxter Jr., general counsel of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The other question came from Scott Alvarez, general counsel to the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. Baxter "pointed out that there had never been a successful MAC case before," the e-mail says, but Roth countered "that this one essentially could be the first" because of the magnitude of Merrill's losses

Just as the NY Fed's lawyer had no duty to say if he thought the Bank of America / Merrill Lynch merger could become the first successful material adverse change case, Bank of America's lawyer had no duty to say if he thought Bank of America was unlikely to win. Lawyers have no duty to reveal what they believe are the strengths and weaknesses of their case, nor how likely they believe it is that their client will prevail.

There is, however, an ethical issue lurking deeper under the surface. There is a dispute (and shareholder class action) as to when, exactly, Bank of America learned of Merrill Lynch's losses. The executives at Merrill Lynch have suggested that BoA knew of the losses before it consummated the merger. If that's true, and Bank of America's lawyers knew it, then they're in a tighter spot, since the essence of a "material adverse change" is the change in circumstances after the merger consummation. One wonders how a lawyer could in good faith argue for a "material adverse change" arising from circumstances known before the merger.

But that's an issue for another day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Really, you should:

The New York Court of Appeals held Pepper Hamilton had a duty to disclose in advance to the insurers the firm's potential involvement in litigation concerning fraudulent loan securitization activities by its client, Student Finance Corp., according to a New York Law Journal article reprinted in New York Lawyer (reg. req.). The court applied Pennsylvania law in the case, which the parties agreed was controlling.

...

But the undisclosed, foreseeable risk of a SFC-related claim against Pepper Hamilton and partner W. Roderick Gagné, even though they had not been involved in SFC's wrongdoing, violated a "prior knowledge" coverage-exclusion clause in the indemnity policies, the Court of Appeals held. Hence, the carriers are not required to indemnify the firm and Gagné in SFC-related claims.

"Given the law firm defendants' role in the securitization of the loans and Gagné's close involvement with SFC, a reasonable attorney with the law firm defendant's knowledge should have anticipated the possibility of a lawsuit, particularly when millions of dollars may have been lost from activities of which they were aware," writes Judge Theodore Jones Jr. in the court's unanimous 6-0 decision.

In 2002, when the law firm applied for the excess coverage, Gagné told Pepper Hamilton's general counsel, in response to a question about the insurance application, that he knew of two suits related to SFC transactions, the ruling recounts. He was, he told the GC, "not certain" about whether the law firm might be joined in the litigation in the future.

I don't fault Pepper Hamilton for trying, but, really, if there is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit out there related to a fraud perpetrated by a client whose business you were deep into, you should probably tell your insurer about it.

The context, too, was important: SFC went bankrupt and the bankruptcy trustee started looking to third-parties for recovery.

Want to guess where bankruptcy trustees start first?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a comment on Overlawyered, Ted Frank points to his draft paper (with Marie Gryphon), Negotiating in the Shadow of 'Bad Faith' Refusal to Settle: A Game Theory Model of Medical Malpractice Pre-Trial Settlements and Insurance Limits:

Recent empirical studies of Texas data by Hyman et al, Zeiler et al, and Silver et al suggest that insurance limits affect settlements of medical malpractice cases. Writing separately, Silver argues that insurance limits act as a de facto cap on malpractice payouts, that plaintiffs are being underpaid as a result, and that therefore legislative caps on damages are unnecessary. But this hypothesis is inconsistent with the data, which indicates that forty-seven percent of cases in which plaintiffs obtain verdicts above policy limits are subsequently settled above policy limits. We propose to reconcile the data by accounting for the effects that third-party causes of action for alleged bad-faith refusal to settle — known in Texas as a Stowers action — have on pretrial settlement negotiations. If an insurer in Texas is presented with a settlement offer within insurance limits, refuses to settle, and the plaintiff wins an award greater than insurance limits, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the insurer for the full damages amount, plus punitive damages, for refusal to settle. In this paper, we explore the game theory of medical malpractice settlement negotiations in the shadow of Stowers.

Based on their (admittedly, and necessarily, simplistic) model of malpractice settlements, they run a Monte Carlo simulation.

It's not a bad idea, but they've missed one of the most important factors in settlement — the willingness and ability of the plaintiff to fight through years of risky litigation, trials, appeals and bankruptcy, where they must succeed 100% of the time to recover — and haven't shown why the existence of third-party bad faith lawsuits (i.e., those brought by the plaintiff against the defendant's insurer) contribute more towards settlement than the existence of first-party bad faith lawsuits (i.e., those brought by the defendant against their insurer).

Let's start with the biggest missing element from their model:

Silver, et al. suggests that there are polite reasons not to seek more than [the insurance policy limits]. But this hypothesis contradicts both what we know about the incentives of attorneys and the empirical data. Are we to believe that trial lawyers, out of the goodness of their heart, refuse to seek more than [insurance policy limits]? This seems improbable: the insured doctor is likely to have substantial assets, trusts provide limited protection, and the plaintiff attorney’s fiduciary duty to her client requires her to zealously pursue the doctor’s assets.

There are indeed "goodness of heart" considerations: it's psychologically easier to take an insurance company's reserves — which have been collected and maintained for the purpose of compensating injured plaintiffs — than to take an individual's personal assets.

But let's put that aside and focus on the money. Keep in mind that, in most circumstances, the insurer can't just pay their policy limits and wave goodbye to the defendant while the plaintiff goes after the defendant's assets. If the defendant doesn't want to pay any of their own money, then the insurance company will keep defending them to a full and final conclusion, without paying the plaintiff a dime in the meantime.

Most often, the settlement of an above-policy-limits claim at policy-limits is not due to the goodness of anyone's heart: it's the rational choice between either settling at insurance policy limits and walking away with the money now, or refusing the insurance money and then chasing the doctor's assets for years (with five-or-six figure additional costs) through trial, appeals, re-trials, bankruptcy, bankruptcy appeals, and bankruptcy discharge, which often pays unsecured creditors a fraction of their claim's value. And don't forget: the plaintiff has to be successful in each and every one of those proceedings.

If the insurer actually tenders their full policy limits, then my "fiduciary duty" to the client typically compels me to recommend the client take the policy limits now, rather than starve themselves for years and endure the substantial risks of running the entire civil legal gauntlet — where they must succeed 100% of the time to recover anything — for a theoretical shot at more.

To their credit, the authors admit at the end that they haven't included these factors:

This is still a relatively simple model: it assumes instantaneous and frictionless rulings, rather than an expensive process that may take several years with substantial fees for attorneys and medical expert witnesses. We assume that the trial court’s judgment is 100% accurate, and that there will be no appeal. We therefore do not consider the issue of post-trial settlement. In real life, the risk that a favorable judgment will be struck on appeal one reason why so many large judgments are settled so seemingly favorably, but it is impossible to estimate the size of this effect without qualitative data that the Hyman “haircut” study does not have.

Trials take years. We make no effort to compare the value of a settlement in the hand with a judgment several years in the future that is stayed by appeal. On the other hand, Texas has relatively generous post-judgment interest rates with a floor of 5%. Expanding the model to consider the time-value of money from early settlement would be useful in adjudging the merits and effects of the so-called “early offers” reform. As Zeiler notes, such time-value can also result in settlements below policy limits by virtue of aggressive negotiating by insurers.

Those two economic issues — the risk of losing on appeal (and/or retrial) and the time value of money — create a massive disincentive against attempting to pursue assets beyond the insurance policy limits. Post-judgment interest is generally irrelevant in the context of cases with damages/judgments larger than insurance proceeds: unless the plaintiff wants to go all the way through appeals, retrials, judgment execution, and bankruptcy, then, regardless of any post-judgment interest, the plaintiff's recovery is still effectively capped at the insurance policy limits.

That's the first problem: the failure to consider the effect of the willingness and ability of the plaintiff to fight through years of risky litigation on settlement.

Here's the second problem: the authors "add a Stowers factor S, which is equal to expected Stowers recovery given a victory at the underlying medical malpractice trial" but don't say how they calculate S. More importantly, though, they don't explain why a third-party bad faith recovery would be expected to be any larger than the first-party bad faith claim available to the doctor if she believes the insurer did not handle the case properly.

When an insurer worries about a potential bad faith claim, they're not just worried about the plaintiff suing them. Indeed, they're usually more worried about the defendant suing them.

Like Dr. Woo:

Robert C. Woo is a Seattle-area dentist. An online guide praises his "first-class service" and "painless procedures." It is likely that Tina Alberts, his former assistant, disagrees.

Alberts cared for pot-bellied pigs, a frequent topic for office banter. Dr. Woo enjoyed taunting her with accounts of his boar-hunting trips, and a picture of a skinned pig hanging from a hook. He predicted a similar fate for Walter, her beloved pet pig. Dr. Woo informs us that this was all part of a "friendly working environment."

When Alberts required surgery to replace two teeth, Dr. Woo saw an opportunity to cement this self-impression of bonhomie. Once she was completely sedated, he halted the agreed procedure, and began a new one. Replacing her teeth required the temporary installation of standard false teeth. Dr. Woo had secretly ordered a second set of temporary teeth, shaped like boar tusks. Removing her oxygen mask, he inserted the tusks and - we must assume this was part of the friendly working environment - took photographs of her with her eyes and mouth pried open. Returning at last to his professional duties, he removed the tusks and inserted the correct temporary teeth.

A month later, Dr. Woo's staff presented Alberts with the pictures at her birthday party. The fun-loving Woo described them as a "trophy" to take home. Home she went, never to return. Instead, she sued Dr. Woo for battery, invasion of privacy, medical malpractice, and a host of related claims.

Dr. Woo's insurance company refused to defend him in Alberts' lawsuit. Dr. Woo settled the case on his own for $250,000, then sued his insurance company.

And won:

Because his insurer should have defended him, Dr. Woo recovered the $250,000 he had paid Alberts. But he also claimed emotional distress due to his insurer's abandonment. Despite "the absence of any medical, psychiatric or expert testimony" attesting these injuries, a jury awarded him $750,000, which suggests the rather even quality of justice throughout the judicial system of Washington State. And naturally, Fireman's had to pay for Dr. Woo's legal costs.

The end result was exactly what Ted Frank and Marie Gryphon's paper is supposed to focus on: a situation in which an insurance company was forced to pay more than the policy limits for a malpractice claim. Yet, in Dr. Woo's case, the third-party Stowers action had nothing to do with it — it was a purely first-party claim brought by the doctor. 

I hope there's more study down this field; the world of litigation and defense & indemnity insurance is ripe for rigorous game theory analysis. But it needs to be as thorough and rigorous as the study of any other economic situation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As you may have heard, Judge Rakoff did not like the proposed SEC settlement with Bank of America (neither did I) in part because it blamed the bank's lawyers while refusing to waive attorney-client privilege and explain what, exactly, went wrong. A week ago, he rejected it entirely:

In a 13-page order available here at the New York Times's DealBook blog, Rakoff variously calls the settlement "trivial," "absurd," and "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate." His primary objection seems to be that shareholders would indirectly pay for the alleged failure to disclose the bonuses, since the bank, not the individual executives who struck the merger agreement, would pay the fine. The SEC, according to Rakoff, says it cannot punish BofA executives because those executives did not craft the merger agreement in a way that--according to the agency--violated disclosure rules. Who did craft the merger agreement in such a way?

According to the SEC, that would be the lawyers who wrote the agreement--Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz for BofA and Shearman & Sterling for Merrill. Rakoff responds with a sentence that must frighten any M&A lawyer: "If that is the case, why are the penalties not then sought from the lawyers?"

As we've written at length, the pointing of the finger at outside counsel has raised serious questions about whether the bank waived attorney-client privilege in its talks with the SEC, and whether Rakoff may try to extend that waiver into his courtroom. The bank, for its part, has denied any wrongdoing, saying it is routine to conceal sensitive information, such as bonus payments, in confidential statements filed at the same time as public merger agreements.

Now Congress has jumped in:

The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Friday told Bank of America that it has questions concerning disclosures made surrounding the bank’s purchase of Merrill Lynch. The panel’s chairman, Edolphus Towns (D-NY), told the bank it can’t use the attorney-client privilege when dealing with Congress. Click here for more, from the NYT; here for earlier coverage of BacMerSaga, from the LB.

In a letter on Friday, Towns (pictured) said the bank must divulge when it became aware of the enormous losses at Merrill last year, when it received a commitment from the federal government for a second round of bailout money and what legal advice its management received about whether it had to disclose those developments to the bank’s shareholders. (Legal advice? Yipes! It means that, at least for the moment, the roles of Wachtell, Lipton and Shearman & Sterling will likely stay firmly in the spotlight.)

...

Bank of America acknowledged that Congress had the authority to disregard attorney-client privilege. That said, the bank’s Washington law firm, WilmerHale, argued that that would set a bad precedent. It’s a sentiment shared, writes the NYT, by the Association of Corporate Counsel, which came to BofA’s defense this month when the New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo asked the bank to give up its claim that its legal advice should remain private. The group issued a statement saying that it would be an “outrageous precedent” for other public companies if the bank had to give up its right to legal privacy.

As I wrote back when Judge Rakoff was still considering the settlement,

Courts often hold that clients cannot use attorney-client privilege as both a sword and a shield. That is, clients can either use lawyers' advice as a "sword" to defend themselves or they can use the privilege as a "shield" to keep communications private, in which case they're off limits entirely.

But they can't have it both ways. If they could, every defendant would just blame their lawyers and call it a day.

Bank of America's (current) lawyers have it exactly backwards: it would set a "outrageous precedent" if privilege was not waived here, because the bank itself interjected legal advice into the matter by blaming its lawyers for what happened.

The principle involved is not complicated. If you want to keep your legal advice out of the case, then do not use it in your defense. If you want to blame your lawyers and raise advice of counsel as a defense, then you lose the privilege.

Sword or shield. Not both.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported:

The finger-pointing in Merrill Lynch’s bonus troubles shifted to a new target on Monday in two court documents that essentially said: blame the lawyers.

Responding to questions posed by a federal judge, Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission said the bank had relied on its outside lawyers to fill in the fine print in that firm’s controversial marriage with Bank of America.

That meant that lawyers at two firms — Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as well as Shearman & Sterling — handled a decision to keep Merrill’s $3.6 billion in bonus payouts a secret from Bank of America’s shareholders, according to the filings.

It is unclear if the responses will satisfy the judge who requested them, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York. He has the power to decide whether to approve a $33 million settlement reached between Bank of America and the S.E.C. over the bank’s failure to disclose the bonuses to its shareholders.

I was going to write a post about how that bothered me, because, as the AmLaw Litigation Daily noted:

"The preparation of the joint proxy statement, including the decision not to attach the disclosure schedule setting forth the agreement on...bonuses or otherwise disclose its contents in the proxy statement, was made by the lawyers at Wachtell, Shearman, Bank of America and Merrill," the SEC brief says, adding that statements in the proxy materials deliberately misled investors into believing Merrill bonuses would not be paid.

Bank of America did not waive attorney-client privilege for the SEC investigation, so the SEC says its knowledge of what the Wachtell and Shearman lawyers said is limited. The government contends, moreover, that the executives' reliance on their lawyers shields them from fraud accusations because it would be hard to prove scienter.

Bank of America's lawyers at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton--Lewis Liman and Shawn Chen--offered precious few of the specifics Judge Rakoff seemed to be asking for at the August 10 hearing. The names of Kenneth Lewis and John Thain, for instance, appear nowhere in BofA's submission. And as for the role of the outside lawyers, the brief merely says: "The parties were represented throughout the process by two law firms with preeminent experience in the field of mergers and acquisitions." Cleary offered no details on who or what those preeminent firms advised about disclosure materials.

Judge Rakoff, however, beat me to it:

Federal judge Jed S. Rakoff fired a new shot in his challenge to a $33 million settlement by Bank of America Corp. over investor disclosures, saying the government's justification for letting individual executives off the hook is "at war with common sense."

The Securities and Exchange Commission reached the settlement with the bank last month. The agency charged that a Bank of America proxy statement in November misled investors about bonuses for employees at Merrill Lynch, which was about to be acquired by the bank.

The SEC has said it couldn't investigate individual executives' culpability because they said they relied on lawyers' advice. Unless the executives waived their right to keep the advice private, the SEC said it would face "substantial obstacles" to building a case.

Judge Rakoff, who must approve any settlement, criticized that reasoning. If that were the regulator's policy, "it would seem that all a corporate officer who has produced a false proxy statement need offer by way of defense is that he or she relied on counsel." He said if the company insists on attorney-client privilege, there is no way to test the assertion and determine whether executives or their lawyers were culpable.

Exactly right. Courts often hold that clients cannot use attorney-client privilege as both a sword and a shield. That is, clients can either use lawyers' advice as a "sword" to defend themselves or they can use the privilege as a "shield" to keep communications private, in which case they're off limits entirely.

But they can't have it both ways. If they could, every defendant would just blame their lawyers and call it a day.

(If you're interested in more, AmLawDaily dug a bit deeper into the ethics issues raised by the litigation.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At Rolling Stone:

Weigman's auditory skills had always been central to his exploits, the means by which he manipulated the phone system. Now he gave Lynd a first-hand display of his powers. At one point during the visit, Lynd's cellphone rang. "I can't talk to you right now," the agent told the caller. "I'm out doing something." When he hung up, Weigman turned to him from across the room. "Oh," the kid asked, "is that Billy Smith from Verizon?"

Lynd was stunned. William Smith was a fraud investigator with Verizon who had been working with him on the swatting case. Weigman not only knew all about the man and his role in the investigation, but he had identified Smith simply by hearing his Southern-accented voice on the cellphone — a sound which would have been inaudible to anyone else in the room. Weigman then shocked Lynd again, rattling off the names of a host of investigators working for other phone companies. Matt, it turned out, had spent weeks identifying phone-company employees, gaining their trust and obtaining confidential information about the FBI investigation against him. Even the phone account in his house, he revealed to Lynd, had been opened under the name of a telephone-company investigator. Lynd had rarely seen anything like it — even from cyber gangs who tried to hack into systems at the White House and the FBI. "Weigman flabbergasted me," he later testified.

As I wrote before in the context of Marc Dreier, "In the world of computer security, that's known as social engineering. Hackers have recognized for a long time that it is far easier to trick someone into giving up their password than to 'hack' it via wizardry."

Weigman's story is incredible, a blind teenager with nothing more than a phone who managed to dispatch SWAT teams, attack other phone hackers ("phreaks"), relentlessly harass phone company investigators, and complicate the FBI's investigation into him.

A Wired story about his sentencing includes an audiotape of him smooth-talking an AT&T operator (by using a small amount of internal lingo and a chatty demeanor) into disconnecting someone's phone line.

I highlight these stories for several reasons, not least to reiterate the importance of (and presumption of) trust in our interdependent society. It's always easy in retrospect to see "obvious" signs of fraud, to recognize the importance of verifying someone else's statements, and to understand the need to reduce agreements and understandings to writing.

But the truth is, no one can protect themselves all the time, at least not if they have any plans for their life other than perpetual paranoia.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AmLawDaily catches Merck passing the reins from Cravath, Swaine & Moore to Williams & Connolly for its petition to the Supreme Court regarding the consolidated Vioxx securities litigation. In a moment, we'll look at Merck's (likely very, very expensive) brief, and marvel at the Catch-22 it proposes.

But first, some background, courtesy of the Third Circuit's opinion:

Appellants, purchasers of Merck & Co., Inc. stock, filed the first of several class action securities fraud complaints on November 6, 2003, alleging that the company and certain of its officers and directors (collectively, “Merck”) misrepresented the safety profile and commercial viability of Vioxx, a pain reliever that was withdrawn from the market in September 2004 due to safety concerns. The District Court granted Merck’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that Appellants were put on inquiry notice of the alleged fraud more than two years before they filed suit, and thus their claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Appellants argue that the District Court erred in finding as a matter of law that there was sufficient public information prior to November 6, 2001 to trigger Appellants’ duty to investigate the alleged fraud.

The Third Circuit agreed with Appellants and reversed the dismissal. That's what Merck has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Although Merck had internal doubts over Vioxx's safety long before it was even approved by the FDA, it never made those doubts public (they were only discovered through litigation). After the "VIGOR" study released in 2000 suggested Vioxx had an increased risk of cardiovascular incidents over another pain reliever, naproxen, Merck argued the difference was due to a protective effect of naproxen, rather than any danger due to Vioxx. In September 2001, the FDA sent Merck a warning letter, which noted:

Although the exact reason for the increased rate of [myocardial infarctions] observed in the Vioxx treatment group is unknown, your promotional campaign selectively presents the following hypothetical explanation for the observed increase in MIs. You assert that Vioxx does not increase the risk of MIs and that the VIGOR finding is consistent with naproxen’s ability to block platelet aggregation like aspirin. That is a possible explanation, but you fail to disclose that your explanation is hypothetical, has not been demonstrated by substantial evidence, and that there is another reasonable explanation, that Vioxx may have pro-thrombotic properties.

The issue remained controversial and disputed until October 2003, when a "study by the Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston that found an increased risk of heart attack in patients taking Vioxx compared with patients taking Celebrex and placebo." A week after that study was made public, the investors sued Merck.

Merck's argument is that the FDA warning letter alone -- which it vigorously disputed in public, while concealing its own internal doubts -- was evidence enough that they committed securities fraud, thereby putting investors on "inquiry notice" and beginning the statute of limitations.

Thanks to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., investors alleging fraud need to show facts, in their initial complaint, which create an "inference of scienter" (i.e., the defendant’s intention “to deceive, manipulate, or defraud) that is

more than merely “reasonable” or “permissible”—it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations. A complaint will survive, we hold, only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.

It's a high bar to meet, a "heightened pleading requirement" to be sure. In essence, investors filing a shareholder fraud suit have to prove, when they file suit, that they'll likely win.

Keep that in mind while reading Merck's brief to the Supreme Court:

With regard to those elements that are required for a violation of Section 10(b), moreover, it is not necessary that the plaintiff possess sufficient information to satisfy any heightened pleading requirements applicable to those elements before the limitations period begins running. In the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA)—enacted after this Court first set out the limitations period for Section 10(b) actions in Lampf—Congress adopted heightened pleading requirements for private securities-fraud actions, including the requirement that the complaint “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” 1934 Act § 21D(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(2).

In Rotella, this Court considered and rejected the argument that the existence of heightened pleading requirements should drive application of the discovery
rule. Specifically, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that it should adopt a broader version of the discovery rule for civil RICO claims on the ground that, in
many cases, those claims were subject to the heightened pleading requirement for fraud claims in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). 528 U.S. at 560-561. While acknowledging the plaintiff’s concern that a narrower rule could “allow[] blameless ignorance to defeat a claim,” the Court concluded that “we simply do not think such a concern should control the decision about the basic limitations rule.” Id. at 560 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although the PSLRA operates differently in some respects from Rule 9(b), the basic point remains the same: under the discovery rule, the limitations period may be triggered even when a plaintiff will not possess sufficient information to satisfy any applicable heightened pleading requirements.

It is therefore true, at least as a theoretical matter, that, under Section 1658(b), a plaintiff may not be in a position to file a securities-fraud complaint that would survive a motion to dismiss before the limitations period runs. Even when the discovery rule is applicable, however, the purpose of the limitations period itself is to give the plaintiff a specified period of time in which to “prepare a case against [the] perpetrators”—not to sit on his complaint once it is ready. Lampf, 501 U.S. at 378 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); see, e.g., Fujisawa Pharm. Co. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3d 1332, 1334 (7th Cir. 1997). As the government has previously explained in another case involving the discovery rule, “statutes of limitations are designed to induce prospective plaintiffs to investigate and act; they are not designed to offer a period of leisure between the completion of an investigation and the filing of suit.” U.S. Br. at 13, Kubrick, supra (No. 78-1014). The possibility that a heightened pleading requirement “will exact some cost,” insofar as some plaintiffs may be unable to prepare valid complaints within the limitations period, is thus an insufficient basis for adopting a broader interpretation of the discovery rule. Rotella, 528 U.S. at 560.

Like I said: Catch-22. According to Merck, you can't sue until you have enough evidence to show a "strong inference" of scienter, but you have to sue within two years of the first sign -- determined in hindsight -- of when you should have been "induce[d] ... to investigate and act," even if there was no evidence of scienter.

It's odd that Cravath and Williams & Connolly didn't put more effort into this argument. Rotella reached its conclusion by analogizing the racketeering claims at issue there -- brought by a psychiatric patient eleven years after discharge against a facility which, he alleged, fraudulently kept him there to boost profits -- to medical malpractice, where the patient is typically put on "notice" of their claims at the time of their injury.

Such bears little resemblance to the Merck case, in which the investors were arguably vaguely "injured" by the 2001 FDA letter regarding Merck's marketing, but had nothing even suggesting deliberate concealment of Vioxx's risks until 2003.

Moving on to the next two paragraphs in Merck's brief: 

Significantly, in extending the limitations period for Section 10(b) claims from one year to two years in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Congress acted out of concern that the preexisting one-year period would foreclose plaintiffs who were unable to prepare complaints sufficient to satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements in time. In its report, the Senate Judiciary Committee observed that “[t]he one year statute of limitations from the date the fraud is discovered is * * * particularly harsh on innocent defrauded investors,” because “the complexities of how the fraud was executed often take well over a year to unravel, even after the fraud is discovered.” S. Rep. No. 146, supra, at 9. Specifically, the committee noted that, “[w]ith the higher pleading standards that * * * govern securities fraud victims, it is unfair to expect victims to be able to negotiate such obstacles in the span of 12 months.” Ibid. That concern would have been wholly misplaced if the one-year period did not begin to run until the plaintiff possessed enough information to satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements in the first place.

Conversely, if the limitations period were triggered only once a plaintiff was able to bring suit, the practical effect of Congress’s adoption of heightened pleading requirements in the PSLRA would have been to postpone the start of the limitations period, sometimes significantly, in many cases. Given that the PSLRA’s primary purpose was to “check * * * abusive litigation by private parties,” Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 313 (2007), it is implausible that, in enacting the PSLRA, Congress would have wanted effectively to extend the time for filing private securities fraud actions—and thus to enable more plaintiffs to use securities-fraud actions as a hedge against downside risk. See pp. 48-49, infra. In sum, the limitations period in Section 1658(b) is triggered by something short of the ability to file a viable complaint, and there is therefore no valid statutory basis for the court of appeals’ rule that a plaintiff must possess information specifically relating to scienter in order to be on inquiry notice.

That misses the point entirely. If Congress wanted to "check abusive litigation," then it is similarly "implausible" that Congress wants to force investors to file suit before they "possess sufficient information to satisfy any heightened pleading requirements."

Which is what Merck suggests.

The investors' brief is due in October. The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument.

But it will raise an interesting question: should investors be required to sue companies at the first hint of trouble, or can they wait until they have facts suggesting wrongdoing? Do we really want to encourage suits which even the plaintiffs don't know are meritorious?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although some physicians continue to claim medical malpractice liability is the biggest problem affecting access to health care (despite the total cost of medical malpractice premiums being $0.50 for every $100 spent on health care, and despite premiums being the lowest they've been in over forty years), the real problem, as alluded to by this American College of Surgeons report, is "declining reimbursement."

That's a euphemism for one of the ugliest businesses in America.

We got a glimpse into that ugly business last week, when Bayonne Hospital Center sued Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (hat tip: Movin' Meat), the largest health insurer in New Jersey, with just under 4 million insureds. The press release is mind-boggling:

The complaint, filed late yesterday in the U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, provides a detailed account of Horizon’s business practices which run counter to the insurer’s contractual duties to its customers, its obligations under state law and its stated commitment to the interest of public health. Some of the most offensive Horizon practices detailed in the complaint include:

• A systematic campaign discouraging patients from seeking emergency care at BHC despite it being the closest and safest option for urgent care for the residents of Bayonne
• Intimidation of patients by threatening denial of coverage if they seek treatment at BHC
• Interference with care by sending couriers to BHC to tell patients undergoing medically necessary treatments to leave BHC and seek care at a hospital that is “in network”
• Indefensible denial of claims, often while the patient is still undergoing care
• Unilateral determinations by Horizon bureaucrats that emergency room patients are medically stable enough to be discharged to home or transferred to other in-network facilities without consulting the patient's attending physician

The complaint not only details Horizon’s atrocious behavior and policies with BHC, but also exposes Horizon’s multi-billion dollar financial success at a time when New Jersey’s hospitals cannot afford to provide healthcare to the communities which they serve. The complaint also reveals Horizon’s gold-plated executive compensation packages and its publicly stated plans for conversion to a “for profit” entity and initial public offering.

Keep than in mind next time someone tells you health care reform might involve "rationing." We've already got rationing, but right now it's done for profit, and done without any regard for your health or safety.

The complaint (a poorly rendered version is available here) alleges thirteen counts, which I break into four main types of claims: antitrust, ERISA, consumer fraud (including Lanham Act), and business torts.

I find that approach a little odd. Most cases involving fraudulent claims denials by insurance companies -- like Grider v. Keystone Health -- primarily allege racketeering ("RICO") claims. Antitrust continues to be notoriously hard to prove, and recent efforts to reform it have already run into trouble. ERISA is a wicked beast of a claim, with dozens of loops and curveballs, and though it quite clearly covers how employers administer the health benefits plans they run, it's not clear how it applies to the health insurance company itself.

That said, these cases aren't easy or simple, and I give the lawyers credit for creativity. They may end up making good law here, and perhaps they'll amend to allege RICO later.

Of course, let's not forget why Grider v. Keystone Health became so prominent: because the defense lawyers for the health insurance company, taking their cues from the client, brought the obstructionism and deception that pervades the health insurance industry into the courtroom, prompting severe sanction from the court.

Like I said: one of the ugliest businesses in America.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At The National Law Journal, Nick Akerman, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, has a thorough argument that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") should, and likely will, be applied against employees who leave with trade secrets or other proprietary / confidential information for use at their new jobs:

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal criminal statute outlawing the theft of data, permits a company that "suffers damage or loss" by reason of a violation of the CFAA, to "maintain a civil action against the violator" for damages and injunctive relief. 18 U.S.C. 1030(g). Since [Pacific Aerospace & Electronics Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1196 (E.D. Wash. 2003)], there has developed a body of district court opinions that refuse to apply the CFAA against employees who steal their employer's data. This article will explain why these opinions are not likely to survive appellate review; it will also provide a strategy to avoid the application of these decisions.

Well worth reading if you come across trade secrets theft in your practice. Akerman may be the most experienced attorney in the country on this developing body of law, and it shows.

I agree with him, but for a more general reason. Since I practice in the Third Circuit (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware), I'll focus on the Third Circuit's most recent opinion on the CFAA:

The District Court focused on the criminal provisions and found it difficult to infer a civil application within the statutory framework and concluded that it could not do so, although the Court did acknowledge that several other courts had determined to the contrary. However, we conclude that not only the relevant case law, but also the plain language of the statute, militate in favor of the availability of a civil remedy, and specifically, the type of injunctive relief sought by the PC plaintiffs.

Numerous courts have recognized that a civil cause of action is apparent from the text of § 1030(g). Although we acknowledge the criminal thrust of the section in general, as it is found in Title 18, there is ample authority for permitting civil actions to proceed based on violations of the section pursuant to the language of § 1030(g). See, e.g., Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) ('The civil remedy extends to 'any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section.'') (emphasis in original); I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Berkshire Info. Sys., Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 521, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (stating that § 1030(g) affords civil action for any violation of CFAA). Accordingly, we conclude that civil relief is available under § 1030(g).

P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations the Party & Seasonal Superstore, LLC, 428 F.3d 504, 511 (3d Cir. 2005).

In one sense, the above looks like a straightforward review of a criminal statute which permits a civil remedy. The statute says there's a remedy, so we'll enforce it.

In another sense, we're witnessing a big change in the way Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court interpret federal statutes which provide plaintiffs with civil relief for criminal conduct.

Like the CFAA, The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") creates a civil remedy for those persons injured by racketeering activities, typically mail or wire fraud. Also like the CFAA, numerous District Courts have contorted the brief text of the RICO Act to enact confusing, complicated barriers to relief without much basis in the Act itself. For example, numerous District Courts required plaintiffs show "first-party reliance" on the alleged mail or wire fraud (rather than merely injury related to the racketeering as a whole) and required that the plaintiff prove the defendants used a formal racketeering structure.

In the past year, the Supreme Court has torn down both of these barriers. See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131, 2145 (2008)(eliminating the "reliance" requirement, noting "Whatever the merits of petitioners’ arguments as a policy matter, we are not at liberty to rewrite RICO to reflect their — or our — views of good policy. We have repeatedly refused to adopt narrowing constructions of RICO in order to make it conform to a preconceived notion of what Congress intended to proscribe."); Boyle v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, No. 07-1309, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4159, at *22–23 (Jun. 8, 2009)(eliminating the "structure" requirement, noting "The fact that RICO has been applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth.”).

Like the RICO Act, the broad text of the CFAA "does not demostrate ambiguity[,] it demonstrates breadth." If the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court interpret the CFAA the same way they've interpreted the RICO Act, we'll see a lot more of these claims in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UPDATE III: The most thorough critique I've read of Iqbal is Professor Burbank's Senate testimony, available here (PDF). As an empirical matter, Iqbal has had a significant effect, particularly on constitutional rights plaintiffs:

The statistical analysis of 1,039 cases shows that 49% of 12(b)(6) motions were granted (with or without leave to amend) in the cases selected (from May 2005 to August 2009). Further, the rate of granting such motions increased from 46% of motions decided under Conley, to 48% of motions decided under Twombly, to 56% of motions decided under Iqbal. A multinomial logistic regression indicates that under Twombly/Iqbal, the odds of a 12(b)(6) motion being granted rather than denied are 1.5 times greater than under Conley, holding all other variables constant.

Moreover, the largest category of cases in which 12(b)(6) motions are filed was constitutional civil rights. Motions to dismiss in constitutional civil rights cases were granted at a higher rate (53%) than in cases overall (49%), and the rate of granting 12(b)(6) motions in constitutional civil rights cases increased in the cases selected from Conley (50%) to Twombly (55%) to Iqbal (60%).

Personally, I think the powers that be understated the degree to which cases were dismissed before, and now overstate the degree to which Iqbal will increase their likelihood of being dismissed. The odds are indeed worse now, but they're still generally 50/50.

UPDATE II: Judge Posner weighs in, wondering if Twombly and Iqbal are limited to complex cases or those with other compelling interests, such as ensuring high-level officials are not distracted from their duties by suits of doubtful merit. I have a new post referencing Posner's opinion and a separate opinion by Judge Easterbrook that throw cold water on those who believe Iqbal has doomed all but the sharpest of complaints.

UPDATE: The NYTimes has an article on the case as well, also believing it to be a death-knell for plaintiffs, noting that federal judges "have cited it more than 500 times in just the last two months." As I wrote below, citation is not the same thing as impact. The standard is not any different from what courts have been practically applying for years, except to add the word "plausible."

Indeed, you don't have to go far to see the limits of Iqbal; just last month the District Court in Padilla v. Yoo, a similar suit against a high-ranking government official, denied defendants' motion to dismiss, quoting Iqbal as follows:

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (brackets omitted))

To reiterate: the sky is not falling on plaintiffs. They need only plead "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," something lawyers have been doing for centuries.]

Drug and Device Law points us to an article in Saturday's Wall Street Journal:

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, released in May, will make it harder to bring a lawsuit without specific factual evidence, raising the threshold for moving a case into expensive litigation and possibly saving companies millions of dollars in legal fees. The case was overshadowed by other business rulings on consumer lawsuits, environmental and employment law and other matters in a term set to end Monday, but legal experts said it may be the most important.

"It's the case that will be cited more than any other by a factor of 100," said Tom Goldstein, partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and founder of the Scotusblog Web site. He called the ruling "an unexpected gift for the business community."

In the case, a Pakistani named Javaid Iqbal sued government officials over his detainment after Sept. 11, 2001. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Iqbal didn't have sufficient factual evidence to proceed with his discrimination claims.

"While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 opinion. He cited the 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, an antitrust case that outlined what plaintiffs must assert to make it through initial court proceedings.

As a result of the Iqbal ruling, businesses may find it easier to fend off lawsuits by persuading courts to dismiss complaints early in litigation.

I disagree. Maybe a handful of cases at the fringes with no factual allegations will be dismissed (most of these cases were already dismissed even prior to Twombly), but that's it. Iqbal's casual reference to pleading standards does not change the narrow focus of the actual opinion, which relates to the very specific issue of how "qualified immunity" applies to high-ranking officials in suits against the federal government for deprivations of constitutional rights.

Tom Goldstein is right that the Ashcroft v. Iqbal opinion will be cited all of the time by defendants' motions to dismiss, and will be cited by court opinions evaluating motions to dismiss, but that doesn't mean defendants will get much mileage out of it.

Rather than argue the details why, let me show you what will probably become my standard draft response to such motions:

Defendant's heavy reliance on Iqbal is misplaced. Iqbal was a Bivens action brought by a Pakistani national who alleged ethnically and racially discriminatory treatment in the post-September 11, 2001, period by numerous federal officials while he was detained for charges of defrauding the United States with regard to identification documents, charges to which he plead guilty, prompting his deportation. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___; Slip op. 1. There was no dispute that the facts alleged by Iqbal stated a Bivens claim against all individuals directly and indirectly involved in his treatment. Id.

The narrow question in Iqbal was whether Bivens liability -- which indisputably does not extend to supervisors through respondeat superior (see Monell) -- attached where the complaint alleged "a supervisor’s mere knowledge of his subordinate’s discriminatory purpose." Slip op., 13. The Supreme Court reiterated that Bivens creates a unique, disfavored and limited cause of action disconnected from normal tort doctrines and reaffirmed that, "[a]bsent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct." Id.

Such a Bivens-specific holding bears no relationship to the business lawsuit sub judice. Importantly, though, and contra defendant's arguments, the Supreme Court reiterated in Iqbal that "a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint" and that a plaintiff need only "state[] a plausible claim for relief [to] survive[] a motion to dismiss." Slip op. 14-15. Plaintiff has clearly done that here; defendants' heavy reliance on an irrelevant Bivens opinion reveals the lack of any support in existing case law for their request to throw plaintiff out of court entirely. The Supreme Court has always instructed, and continues to instruct, District Courts to assume the facts in the complaint to be true, to make reasonable inferences on behalf of plaintiff's allegations, and to deny dismissal where plaintiff has a "plausible" claim.

Finally, again contra defendants, Iqbal was specifically remanded to the Circuit Court to consider whether the plaintiff there should be permitted to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies. Such is consistent with this Circuit's precedent, in which leave to amend is to be freely granted prior to dismissal unless such amendment is clearly futile or inequitable.

So there you go. Iqbal soundly rejects Bivens liability for high-ranking government officials merely potentially aware of misdeeds much further down the chain of command (and it reiterates the appealability of an order on qualified immunity), but that's it.

The sky has not fallen on business plaintiffs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The WSJ Law Blog finds easter eggs for consumers of financial products buried in the proposed financial regulation overhaul:

The [not-yet-created Consumer Fraud Protection Agency] should be directed to gather information and study mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer financial services and products contracts to determine to what extent, and in what contexts, they promote fair adjudication and effective redress. If the CFPA determines that mandatory arbitration fails to achieve these goals, it should be required to establish conditions for fair arbitration, or, if necessary, to ban mandatory arbitration clauses in particular contexts, such as mortgage loans.

...

Although arbitration may be a reasonable option for many consumers to accept after a dispute arises, mandating a particular venue and up-front method of adjudicating disputes – and eliminating access to courts – may unjustifiably undermine investor interests. We recommend legislation that would give the SEC clear authority to prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in broker-dealer and investment advisory accounts with retail customers.

Business Insider worries about the unintended consequences:

That seems a clear way of increasing the costs of broker-dealer and investment advisory costs, which may mean that smaller customers find that brokerages are even less likely to deal with them than before. As usual, there seems to be very little thought given to how brokers will react to having the increased risk of litigation imposed upon them.

What's more, there are serious questions about whether it makes sense to burden the court system with additional litigation that a ban on mandatory arbitration will sure spur. In effect, a part of the costs of disputes between brokers and their customers are being transferred to the taxpayer who will pay the costs for the extra-burden on courts. It's far from clear why this shift in cost from the parties to the agreement to taxpayers is warranted. We can squint our eyes and see this as something of a bailout of customers who wind up unhappy with their broker.

Last I checked, "wind[ing] up unhappy with [your] broker" wasn't worth a dime in a court of law, at an arbitration, or anywhere else. The investors aren't "unhappy" because their broker didn't get them a cheese wheel for Christmas, they're "unhappy" because their broker breached their contractual and fiduciary duties and lost a ton of the investor's money. It takes an awful lot of "squinting" to see a months-or-years-long expensive lawsuit to get back the money that someone else lost as a "bailout."

Most "mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer financial services and products contracts" force the disputes be heard in FINRA's Dispute Resolution process. As The National Law Journal reported at the end of March,

FINRA — the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority — oversees nearly 5,000 brokerage firms, 173,000 branch offices and 659,000 registered securities representatives. It describes its chief role as protecting investors by maintaining the fairness of the U.S. capital markets. ...

"We don't have official projections for 2009, but if the trend continues, we're probably looking at a high that will match what we saw in '03 and '04," said FINRA spokesman Brendan Intindola.

Arbitration cases filed in 2003 and 2004 — the largest number in 14 years — almost reached the 9,000 mark and were driven by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the subsequent decline in the equity markets. In 2007, slightly more than 3,000 cases were filed, and in 2008, nearly 5,000.

Lawyers who represent customers and industry members generally believe that FINRA will be able to manage the dramatic increase in its arbitration workload, but they are divided on whether its arbitration panels — charged with industry bias in the past — now provide a level playing field to those using the process.

"The general perception is it is very tilted," said one practitioner who asked for anonymity. "Even if only one-third of the panel is from industry, that's the person with alleged expertise and who has disproportionate sway on the panels."

Broker/Dealer arbitrations are common, but banning them wouldn't open the floodgates: financial products consumers file under 10,000 claims filed nationwide. Keep in mind that essentially every dispute you have with your broker/dealer is forced into FINRA arbitration, including no-brainer claims like the return of a promissory note, so these numbers may be inflated to some degree. It's hard to say what percent of these filings claim substantial losses due to malfeasance.

More importantly, though glossed over by Business Insider, full-fledged civil litigation in open court is not fun for anyone involved. Even within confidential arbitration, just last month FINRA quietly withdrew a proposal that would have permitted more extensive discovery into the financial records of investors bringing claims against their financial advisers, in light of numerous complaints that such a change would subject investors to a "financial colonoscopy." Moving these types of cases into the civil court system would permit defendant banks and investment advisers to dig very deeply into the personal and financial histories of investors bringing suit, far deeper than they would be permitted to do in an arbitration.

For most of the individual claims, I am not too concerned about the arbitration process, as it provides wealthy investors (who make up most of the filings) a simple, relatively convenient and very private way in which to seek redress for their losses, and they will be adequately represented by paid counsel throughout the process. The problems for everyone else, however, are twofold:

• It's not clear whether a group of injured inventors may pursue a class action against a broker-dealer, investment bank or investment adviser. FINRA's Code says it is not applicable to class actions, and an increasing number of courts have held in other contexts that bans of class actions are illegal, but the law here is not as clear as it should be.
   
• The selection process for these arbitrators is not transparent. @phila_lawyer is right that FINRA seems to prefer arbitrators familiar with the financial industry; that's not necessarily evidence of bias, but it's nonetheless problematic, since it exposes the process to 'capture' by the industry and, as noted above, such 'insiders' often hold undue sway on panels.

As such, it's certainly worth a look into the issue, which is all the Obama plan proposes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An interesting opinion out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Youtie v. Macy's Retail Holding, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47383 (June 5, 2009) by Senior Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr.:

On August 1, 2000, Macy's acquired all of the publicly-held shares of David's Bridal, Inc. David's Bridal is a corporation and a clothier specializing in bridal gowns and other formal wear and accessories. Plaintiff had purchased David's Bridal in 1972, expanded the operations, partnered with Steven Erlbaum beginning in 1989 or 1990 and with Erlbaum made a public offering of David's Bridal's stock in 1999. After Macy's acquired David's Bridal, plaintiff entered into a contract of employment with a division of Macy's, Macy's Retail, on or about October 1, 2001. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, Youtie served as the Executive Vice-President, Product Development and Sourcing of the David's Bridal division of Macy's Retail. On November 17, 2006, an affiliate of Leonard Green & Partners signed an agreement with Macy's to acquire David's Bridal and consummated the sale and transfer of stock of David's Bridal to the Leonard Green affiliate on January 31, 2007. As part of the transaction, Macy's subsidiary Macy's Retail assigned its employment agreement with plaintiff to David's Bridal.

In short, Plaintiff claimed that the sale of his division to another company was a termination entitling him to severance. He lost; applying Missouri law (per the contract), the Court held:

The employment contract at issue in this case is one for personal services, which, as a general rule, cannot be assigned without the consent of the employee. Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Koelz, 722 S.W.2d 311, 312-13 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986), citing Alldredge v. Twenty-Five Thirty-Two Broad. Corp., 509 S.W.2d 744, 749 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). However, a mere change in the form in which a business is owned or conducted should not work to prohibit assignment. Id. at 313. Whether there is a change in partnership personnel or structure, the incorporation of a previously unincorporated business, the dissolution of a corporation or a change in corporate structure, "if there is no material change in the contract obligations and duties of the employee, there is no reason for the transfer of the rights from one entity or form to another to work an assignment putatively prohibited by the rule against assignment of personal service contracts." Id.

That's what happened here, in addition to the employment agreement itself recognizing the possibility of assignment. Hence, summary judgment for the Defendant on Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff probably should have left it alone:

Defendants filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims on December 17, 2007, alleging that plaintiff breached his employment agreement, misappropriated trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietary information, breached his fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, engaged in tortious interference with business and employment relations, was unjustly enriched and engaged in unfair competition.

Uh oh. Among other allegations:

Plaintiff does not dispute that the "first cost" data at issue is the cost the manufacturer charged David's Bridal to manufacture the designs David's Bridal provided the manufacturer for its Spring 2007 catalogue. Additionally, plaintiff admitted in his affidavit that he "asked for the cost data because [] Erlbaum . . . was interested in what David's Bridal paid various manufacturers for the dresses they manufactured." Plaintiff further admits that he gave a copy of the cost sheet to Erlbaum but believes that plaintiff provided it to Erlbaum after plaintiff recovered from the surgical procedure he underwent after his January trip to Hong Kong.

Plaintiff also admits that he and his former partner Erlbaum had general discussions about Erlbaum returning to the bridal business. 

It's never a good idea to share proprietary information about your current employer with your former business partner.

Plaintiff raise a good issue; most of Defendants' claims were actually a single "trade secrets" claim:

laintiff argues that defendants' counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietary information, unjust enrichment and unfair competition are preempted by the PUTSA. The relevant section of the PUTSA provides as follows:

(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this Commonwealth providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

(b) Exceptions.--This chapter does not affect:

(2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or

12 Pa. C.S.A. § 5308. The dominant view of courts in states that have also adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of 1985 is that preemption exists to the extent that defendants' counterclaims are based on the same conduct that is said to constitute a misappropriation of trade secrets. See e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., 2009 WL 383444, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2009); Hecny Trans., Inc. v. Chu, 430 F.3d 402, 404-05 (7th Cir. 2005); Penalty Kick Mgmt. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., 318 F.3d 1284, 1296-98 (11th Cir. 2003); Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 (Del. 2002).

Defendants' counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment and unfair competition involve plaintiff's conduct of requesting and disclosing "first cost" data to Erlbaum. These claims each refer to the same "first cost" data and are wholly based on the same conduct as the conduct that comprises a misappropriation of trade secrets claim. The "first cost" data is the sole information at issue in this case and it is either a trade secret or something less. Thus, these counterclaims are preempted only if the "first cost" data at issue constitutes a misappropriation of a trade secret.

And that's what would have kicked out most of these claims, except that the parties forgot to brief if the information was actually a trade secret:

A trade secret under the PUTSA is defined as:

Information, including a formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a costumer list, program, device, method, technique or process that:

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

PUTSA, 12 P.S. § 5302.

However, neither party has properly briefed whether this information qualifies as a trade secret. Plaintiff argues that the PUTSA preempts defendants' counterclaims but states, without sufficient legal analysis, that the information does not qualify as a trade secret to satisfy the PUTSA because it was readily available to anyone who asked for it. These arguments are contradictory; plaintiff cannot have it both ways. See Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Group Am., Inc., 295 F. Supp.2d 430, 437 (D. Del. 2003), stating that arguing that information does not constitute a trade secret and also that other claims are preempted by the Trade Secret Act is contradictory. Defendants did not respond with legal analysis on whether the "first cost" data constitutes a trade secret; instead they merely requested leave to file an amended counterclaim complaint if I find such information to be a trade secret. As this information may qualify as a trade secret, I will not find that the data satisfies lesser standards than those required for a trade secret merely because the issue has not been properly briefed. For this reason, I cannot find that defendants' counterclaims of misappropriation of trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment and unfair competition are preempted at this time because defendants may still be able to recover under such theories in the event that the "first cost" data does not constitute a misappropriation of a trade secret under the PUTSA. Cenveo Corp. v. Slater, 2007 WL 527720, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2007), stating "that the cases holding that the Trade Secrets Act does not preempt common law tort claims when it has yet to be determined whether the information at issue constitutes a trade secret take the better approach." 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In law school, financial fraud is so simple -- Gollum tells Frodo something that isn't true, Frodo relies on the false statement, then Gollum steals the precious and runs away.

The reality is a little more complicated. Take, for example, what New Line Cinema did to Peter Jackson for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, prompting Jackson to sue:

The suit charges that the company used pre-emptive bidding (meaning a process closed to external parties) rather than open bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as "Lord of the Rings" books, DVD's and merchandise. Therefore, New Line received far less than market value for these rights, the suit says.

Most of those rights went to other companies in the New Line family or under the Time Warner corporate umbrella, like Warner Brothers International, Warner Records and Warner Books. So while the deals would not hurt Time Warner's bottom line, they would lower the overall gross revenues related to the film, which is the figure Mr. Jackson's percentage is based on.

According to people on both sides of Mr. Jackson's lawsuit, the claim strikes at the heart of the modern vertically integrated media company. One of the apparent - though largely unproven - benefits of media integration is the ability of conglomerates like the Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, the News Corporation, Viacom, Sony and General Electric to sell subsidiary rights to the many divisions within the company.

After 408 docket entries, including such fun as a $125,000 sanction order for defendant's refusal to comply with discovery, the case was settled.

In my own practice, these types of unfair insider deals with alter-ego entities comprise the bulk of financial fraud amongst members of a partnership, limited liability company (LLC), or corporation. The method of the fraud is dependent upon the target. If a partner wants to defraud another partner, they will set up a sham alter-ego entity and then engage in blatantly unfair transactions with it. If a partner or group of partners want to defraud an outside auditor or shareholders, they will set up a sham alter-ego entity and then unload assets or liabilities onto that entity.

That's what Enron and AIG both did to hide the fact that both were taking on liabilities and debt far greater than they could hope to repay if the market went south: they created baloney entities and deals that masked the source and destination of funds, assets and liabilities.

Given the frequency of this fraud, and Wall Street's evident skill in utilizing it, I was none too pleased to see Geithner's WSJ Op-Ed and this announcement:

• The Process for Purchasing Assets Through The Legacy Loans Program: Purchasing assets in the Legacy Loans Program will occur through the following process:
  • Banks Identify the Assets They Wish to Sell: To start the process, banks will decide which assets – usually a pool of loans – they would like to sell. The FDIC will conduct an analysis to determine the amount of funding it is willing to guarantee. Leverage will not exceed a 6-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio. Assets eligible for purchase will be determined by the participating banks, their primary regulators, the FDIC and Treasury. Financial institutions of all sizes will be eligible to sell assets.
  • Pools Are Auctioned Off to the Highest Bidder: The FDIC will conduct an auction for these pools of loans. The highest bidder will have access to the Public-Private Investment Program to fund 50 percent of the equity requirement of their purchase.
  • Financing Is Provided Through FDIC Guarantee: If the seller accepts the purchase price, the buyer would receive financing by issuing debt guaranteed by the FDIC. The FDIC-guaranteed debt would be collateralized by the purchased assets and the FDIC would receive a fee in return for its guarantee.
  • Private Sector Partners Manage the Assets:Once the assets have been sold, private fund managers will control and manage the assets until final liquidation, subject to strict FDIC oversight.

Liberal economists like Paul Krugman are on balance opposed, with the notable exception of Brad Delong.

But let's put aside economics and look at it from the perspective of a Wall Street banker.

Considering the Treasury's stubborn refusal to even identify the recipients of existing bailout funds (with rare exceptions, like the partial list of AIG counterparties) and penchant for creating its own slew of vehicles (for example, the Term Auction Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, and Maiden Lane I, II and III), I have little doubt the new process will be as transparent as a chunk of coal.

Wall Street and their lawyers -- one of whom almost got a top spot at Treasury -- will have little trouble creating a slew of Special Purpose Vehicles / Entities (or repurposing existing, loss-laden hedge funds) for the sole purpose of bidding the price even higher than the expected value and unleashing that huge, 85% no-recourse Federal loan guarantee.

That makes the whole thing a win-win for Wall Street: it's like setting up "Toxic Assets LLC" then using an >85% government subsidy to "buy" everything at your own garage sale at inflated prices.

If your junk is worthless, it doesn't matter, since you set a price more than high enough to make a profit when you first sold it, taking into consideration the modest capital you put into Toxic Assets LLC.

I'm sure Treasury will put together a handful of half-hearted competitive bidding limitations that will say the exact same company that owns the assets can't bid on them, and I'm sure Wall Street will have no trouble finding its way around these limitations. I then expect to see these "legacy assets" go for sale at impressive, expectation-shattering levels, which will be hailed as a success.

A few months or years later, totally unexpected, the entities that bought these "legacy assets" will go bankrupt, pleading that they did the best they could to help the American taxpayer, and, gee whiz, we lost some money, too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The top officials at Treasury have already set aside all of the broad governmental powers available (claiming we are a "nation of laws"), so let's look at the United States purely as an angel investor which saw a large company faltering and swooped in with an 80% equity investment. Uncle Sam has just learned about the following (AIGFP is the “Financial Products” division of AIG, the morons responsible for wiring the global economy to explode by writing trillions of dollars in undercapitalized “credit default swap” policies):

In the first quarter of 2008 [a few months prior to the equity purchase], AIGFP adopted a retention plan for about 400 employees that provided guaranteed payments to employees if they worked through specified payment dates (or either resigned for good reason or was terminated without cause before the relevant dates). At the time, AIGFP was expected to have a valuable, on-going role at AIG. The plan was implemented because there was a significant risk of departures among employees at AIGFP, and given the $2.7 trillion of derivative positions at AIGFP at that time, retention incentives appeared to be in the best interest of all of AIG’s stakeholders. The program was evidenced by a written plan distributed to employees and by individual agreements executed by them.

For senior management the plan provides that 2008 and 2009 compensation will be 75% of 2007 expected compensation levels. Other participants are set at the full 2007 level. This resulted in a $313 million total for 2008 and a $327 million total for 2009 (because some employees who had other guaranteed compensation for 2008 were excluded for that year).

Frustratingly, had AIG merely gone bankrupt instead being saved by the investment, then these would likely be voidable by the trustee as excessive insider transactions under 11 USC § 547. (Indeed, if AIG goes bankrupt soon, we’re still within the “1 year and 90 days” window to use § 547.)

At the moment, we don’t have the text of the contracts, and so can’t determine if any of the doctrines listed in this exhaustive Concurring Opinions post would apply. Personally, I think commercial impracticability / frustration of purpose are realistic options here given AIG’s total dependence upon the government’s grace.

But let’s assume the contract is, on its face, iron-clad, properly drafted, formed, accepted, and with all conditions met.

What’s a cheated shareholder to do?

Unsurprisingly, American International Group, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware, the least-shareholder-friendly jurisdiction in the country (which is why management loves it), so we’ll look to Delaware law.

Generally, prior to launching a derivative suit on behalf of the company, a shareholder must send a demand letter to the board of directors, demanding they, in this instance, not go through with the transaction. Here, however, a court would likely find the demand letter requirement excused as “futile” given AIG CEO Edward Liddy’s letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner asserting that AIG intended to go through with the payments despite his complaints.

So we’re past the first hurdle, and can sue on behalf of AIG, as shareholders at the time this payment is being made. But the bar is set quite high for us. Unsurprisingly,

The AIG certificate of incorporation has a § 102(b)(7) clause that insulates AIG's directors from liability for monetary damages for any harm flowing from their gross negligence. See Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1095-96 (Del. 2001) (affirming the dismissal of a duty of care claim where the corporation's charter had an exculpatory provision).

We'll get to the source of this quote in a minute. For now, "gross negligence" isn't even enough to sue a director.

So who do we sue and what do we allege?

Like most plaintiffs, we start hobbled by a lack of information. What the heck does the white paper mean that “This amount is due pursuant to a retention plan entered into in early 2008?” Entered into by whom, and with whom, after what process?

Talking Points Memo points us to the NY Daily News regarding how AIGFP functioned:

Company auditor Joseph St. Denis became concerned about the Financial Products unit, but [Joseph Cassano, head of AIG Financial Products] barred him from checking.

St. Denis later quoted Cassano as saying, "I have deliberately excluded you ... because I was concerned that you would pollute the process."

St. Denis would recall Cassano saying he did not want to be promoted even further up the corporate ladder "because it would separate [him] from the money." St. Denis would remember Cassano telling him "AIG's corporate management was "scared to death" of him."

Oh my. That's not much of an internal process at all. It sounds like they're just running a criminal organization in there, or at the very least had inadequate internal controls that were too easily bypassed by the insiders.

We don't have to look far to figure out if we can sue for that. Just a month ago, the Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle) refused to dismiss a shareholder complaint against AIG because,

The Complaint fairly supports the assertion that AIG's Inner Circle led a -- and I use this term with knowledge of its strength -- criminal organization. The diversity, pervasiveness, and materiality of the alleged financial wrongdoing at AIG is extraordinary. The proposition that Matthews and Tizzio, who the Complaint fairly alleges were directly knowledgeable of and involved in much of the wrongdoing, did not also know that AIG's internal controls were inadequate and too easily bypassed is not, for present purposes, an interpretation to ground a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal order on. Indeed, for present purposes, it is inferable that even when Matthews and Tizzio were not directly complicitous in the wrongful schemes, they were aware of the schemes and knowingly failed to stop them. In that regard, I find it inferable that Matthews and Tizzio were aware of misconduct that should have been brought to the attention of AIG's independent directors (including the Audit Committee) but chose to conceal their knowledge, despite having a fiduciary duty to speak."

Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Greenberg, No. C.A. No. 769-VCS, 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 15, at *77–78 (Del. Ch. Feb. 10, 2009). For more, see the Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog which, alongside The D&O Diary and the Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Forum, sets the bar for reporting on these cases.

In that suit, Greenberg, Matthews and Tizzio were all directors, who are the normal targets of shareholder suits, because their actions are generally insured by policies previously paid for by the company.

But we're not limited to them -- recent amendments to 10 Del. C. § 3114 assure us jurisdiction in Delaware over directors, trustees, members and officers of all corporations incorporated in Delaware. It's not clear exactly what Cassano's position was, but the "head" of anything is generally an officer of some sort. So we've got him, even if he's never set foot in Delaware. At the very least, we can sue whatever directors or officers were involved in this transaction -- several hundred million dollars doesn't walk out the door without someone blessing it.

Then what? Assuming even we can't prove outright fraud by these 400 employees, we still have the blatant breach of fiduciary duty by excluding the auditor. As such, the whole plan, even as it relates to "innocent" parties, can be reformulated under Delaware law:

The glaring problem with the defendants' argument is again a category error -- this is not a contract case involving the reformation of a contract to effectuate the parties' intent; it is a fiduciary duty case, and this court has broad discretion to remedy breaches of fiduciary duty, including reformation when, as here, that is appropriate to remedy a fiduciary violation. See, e.g., Thorpe v. CERBCO, Inc., 676 A.2d 436, 445 (Del. 1996) ('Delaware law dictates that the scope of recovery for a breach of the duty of loyalty is not to be determined narrowly.'); Taylor v. Jones, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 100, 2006 WL 1510437, at (Del. Ch. May 25, 2006) (noting that a resulting trust may be an appropriate remedy even though the prerequisites to a resulting trust under the modern, majority approach were not present and that this court's 'historical readiness to adapt to the circumstances of each case and craft appropriate remedies . . . should not be lightly discarded or circumscribed'); Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. v. Cantor, 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 70, 2001 WL 536911, at (Del. Ch. May 11, 2001) (awarding fee shifting in as a remedy for a breach of the duty of loyalty despite an express contractual provision providing otherwise and explaining that 'when the facts demonstrate behavior as egregious as that here, the Court's normal deference to pre-negotiated partnership agreement provisions will yield to a conscientious effort to craft an appropriate remedy')."

GPC XLI L.L.C. v. Loral Space & Communs. Consol. Litig. (In re Loral Space & Communs. Consol. Litig.), C.A. No. 2808-VCS, C.A. No. 3022-VCS, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 136, at *7–123–5–3–124 n.161 (Del. Ch. Sept. 19, 2008).

If we are a "nation of laws," why not use some of them?

UPDATE Steven M. Davidoff at DealBook gets it:

This was not a boilerplate contract. Rather, it was highly negotiated. And it was highly negotiated to pay retention fees at high levels without regard to performance. This is obviously shocking. But it makes me wonder: perhaps one area of direction here should be actually looking at who negotiated this and why?

It strikes me that the A.I.G. financial products division received an unbelievably sweet deal. Did its managers slip it under the radar? Did the managers act in good faith? And who at A.I.G. signed off on this and did they focus on the risks and rewards? Yet more avenues for possible litigation.

But of course, this is all merely a diversion for what should be the main focus: Where did the $170 billion go that taxpayers spent on A.I.G and why, and what we are going to do with A.I.G. going forward.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It's an article of faith among many businesses and lawyers: Delaware. It doesn't matter what the question is. Where should you incorporate? What should the governing law of your contract be? 

Delaware! Delaware's good for business.

Right?

Not necessarily. Much ink has been spilled over why, exactly, businesses constantly incorporate in Delaware and/or insert Delaware into choice of law provisions in their contracts. Among the most common reasons is: Delaware has more developed and thus stable precedent than any other jurisdiction.

I'm not sure this reason stands even on its own merits. E.g., the law of malpractice and negligence is very well-developed and yet we still find plenty of legal issues to litigate, and still rarely settle until immediately before trial. 

This "stability" has long been under fire, most recently as noted by The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog, addressing two recent Chancery Court opinions on shareholder suits against Citigroup and AIG:

These cases seem to support the claim by William Carney and George Shepherd in The Mystery of Delaware Law’s Continuing Success (William Carney & George Shepherd, 2009 U. ILL. L. REV. 1) that Delaware law is infected by costly indeterminacy. After these cases, where, exactly, does a duty of loyalty claim for breach ofCaremark duties stand?

The courts in these cases distinguished a claim that directors ignored the inadequate controls of patent business risks (Citigroup) from one that the directors ignored inadequate controls of insider wrongdoing (AIG). While these distinctions seem clear, and the cases seem rightly decided on their facts, the distinctions fray at the edges. Deliberately and knowingly ignoring either kind of risk can give rise to a claim. The defendants in Citigroup, even if careless, did not sink to that standard, while the AIG defendants did. So how does insider wrongdoing affect the determination? Must the flags be redder to trigger liability where there is no insider wrongdoing, but the risk could bring the company down? If so, how much redder? Is there a sliding scale for the degree of insider wrongdoing the defendants allegedly ignored. In AIG, the complaint supported an assertion that the insiders led, in Vice Chancellor Strine’s words, a “criminal organization.” Would the result be different if the alleged wrongdoing had been somewhat less pervasive? But does not the pervasiveness tie to the defendants’ knowledge, which leads back to square one?

 

In fairness, though, this does not necessarily support a criticism of Delaware law. As Chancellor Chandler wrote (with Anthony A. Rickey) in responding to Carney & Shepherd’s criticism in Manufacturing Mystery: A Response to Professors Carney and Shepherd’s “The Mystery of Delaware Law’s Continuing Success (2009 U. Ill. L. Rev. 95), Delaware is at least no more indeterminate than other jurisdictions.

Indeed, I argued in my own response to Carney & Shepherd, The Uncorporation and Corporate Indeterminacy, (2009 U. ILL. L. REV. 131), that indeterminacy is inherent in corporate law rather than specifically in Delaware jurisprudence. The solution is to turn to “uncorporate” law, which leads directly to my next two points.

 

Well said, and the whole post (as well as its references to Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz client memorandum posted here and Francis Pileggi's own comments here) are required-reading for those interested in shareholder derivative suits.

The overarching theme bears repeating -- the law is fundamentally "indeterminate." Businesses aren't going to be able to change that by just doing what every other business does because they think they should.

The problem is compounded by the way many businesses "choose" Delaware law, often in conjunction with an arbitration or choice of venue provision that ensures that Delaware law will be "applied" by a court or arbitrator with no experience in Delaware law. How "stable" and "determinate" can that possibly be?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kevin LaCroix at The D&O Diary delivers news that surprises no one, a securities class action based upon Bank of America's untimely disclosure of Merrill Lynch's catastrophic losses:

As has been well-publicized, within a matter of weeks of closing its acquisition of Merrill Lynch, Bank of America announced previously undisclosed 4Q08 operating losses at Merrill of $21.5 billion that required BofA to obtain an emergency $20 billion cash injection from the U.S. Treasury, as well as an additional $118 billion asset backstop. BofA’s stock market valuation has dropped more $100 billion since the day before the merger was announced through the company’s January 16 earnings release.

As the Wall Street Journal reported (here), questions immediately arose following BofA’s announcement of the Merrill losses, such as why BofA’s CEO Kenneth Lewis "didn’t discover the problems prior to the Sept. 15 deal announcement" and "why he didn’t disclose the losses prior to the vote on the Merrill deal on Dec. 5 or before closing the deal on Jan. 1."

With these kinds of questions circulating, it comes as no surprise that plaintiffs’ attorneys have initiated litigation. There were actually two different lawsuits announced on January 21, 2009 relating to these circumstances. Both of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of persons who held BofA securities on October 10, 2008, the record date for the December 5, 2009 special meeting of shareholders to approve the merger.

LaCroix, no stranger to director and officer liability, has a thorough take on it, and Ideoblog raises the possibility of a "national interest" exception to securities disclosure laws due to the circumstances: on December 17, Lewis had become so concerned that he went to DC to meet with Bernanke and Paulson for guidance, both of whom, Lewis said, "[were] firmly of the view that terminating or delaying the closing...could result in serious systemic harm."

The Fed denied they requested Lewis to keep quiet. Either way, Lewis obviously knew of the trouble by the December 17 meeting with the Fed, but didn't report the losses publicly until Bank of America's next earnings statement on January 16. That's problematic.

The WSJ Law Blog also flags another action, this one brought by Susman Godfrey, alleging the same, with a particular paragraph of interest in their complaint:

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, just three days after shareholders voted to approve the merger, on December 8, 2008, Merrill’s CEO John Thain addressed a meeting of Merrill’s Board of Directors. Thain reported that Merrill suffered significant losses in November, which Thain described as one of the worse months in Wall Street history. Despite the size of these losses, Thain told Merrill’s board the losses were in line with BOA’s estimates. Neither BOA nor Merrill, nor any of the Individual Defendants, ever disclosed any such estimates . . . to their shareholders in the Proxy Statement. Likewise, no loss estimates were disclosed in any subsequent filings.

Ruh-roh!

• September 15 -- Deal is reached. BoA and ML get to work on details.
• October 31 -- Proxy statement issued to shareholders (you can find it here) in conjunction with the special meeting.
• December 5 -- Special meeting of shareholders, who vote to approve the deal.
• December 8 -- Thain tells ML board of significant losses in November, losses "in line with BOA's estimates."
• "Mid December" -- Lewis learns of ML's losses.
• December 17 -- Lewis meets with Bernanke and Paulson
• January 16 --  BoA discloses losses to shareholders.

Lewis & Thain's stories are not consistent. Either:

1. BoA didn't provide ML estimates like Thain suggested;
2. Lewis didn't know about BoA's own estimates, even though Thain did; or,
3. Lewis knew sbout ML's losses sometime significantly before December 8.

The plaintiffs are betting on #3, though they could make hay out of #2. It's hard to see how anyone could sue for #1 -- the BoA deal was the best thing that could have happened to ML, without which ML probably would have collapsed.

Of course, there's another issue here: both Bank of America and Merrill Lynch were effectively insolvent throughout the plaintiffs' class period. Both are completely dependent upon emergency government policies to stay operating, and the government has already stepped in to convert the messy merger into a complicated loan and guarantee program.

That is to say, anyone who bought shares of Bank of America in this time frame knew they were buying an effectively insolvent company, and the damages of the Merrill transaction may be, at most, to rearrange the form of Bank of America's insolvency -- possibly to its advantage.

(If you're not familiar with Section 14(a) shareholder class actions, there's a little background below the fold.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Starting January 1st, PGW bumped up rates by over 5%, even as natural gas prices remain low and consumers elsewhere see cuts.

Why? Because CDR Financial Products, the financial advisory firm close to former Mayor Street (and previously, and currently, under FBI investigation), was paid $225,000 to set up a terrible "bond" deal with JP Morgan to finance $310 million PGW bonds in 2006 that netted JPM millions and will leave PGW's customers holding the bag.

Part of the deal was merely a bad idea: instead of issuing traditional fixed-rate bonds, PGW engaged in an "interest-rate swap," which is a specialty of CDR, a complicated form of variable-rate financing in which the borrower generally ends up taking on some risk of interest rates rising, but not as much as if they had simply issued a variable-rate bond.

Interest rates rose and now PGW is paying an extra $6 million per year over what they could have had with a fixed-rate bond issue. The fixed rate would have been 5.25; the original 'effective rate' of the swap was 3.67 and is now 7.25, hence the additional payments.

That happens, it's an accepted risk of interest-rate swaps, and a lot of entities and municipalities were still foolishly investing in variable-rate products in 2006, despite the obvious interest rate increases on the horizon.

The "biggest problem," however, as described by the Philadelphia Inquirer, is not so understandable:

When bond markets froze in the summer, FSA, like most other bond insurers, saw its credit ratings cut, and investors started fearing the bonds could default. They began dumping PGW bonds back to JPMorgan and the other banks.

...

JPMorgan told PGW in the fall that it couldn't afford to keep owning the bonds indefinitely. Under the deal, if the bonds can't be sold by July, PGW must pay the banks $60 million a year, for the next five years, until the value of the bonds is paid off. PGW says it can't afford that with its other debt.

PGW can cancel the swap agreement but, under the deal, might have to pay JPMorgan more than $30 million to compensate the bank for ending the arrangement early.

Or it can find a new lender willing to sell new bonds, probably at higher rates, Bisgaier added. "We have six months to fix this."

None of that should be PGW's problem. JPMorgan agreed to underwrite the bonds; at that point, the bonds should have become JPMorgan's responsibility. Normally, if the underwriter can't place the bonds, they hold on to them. If bondholders have clauses in their purchase agreement with JPM permitting them to rescind the deal and send the bonds back to JPM, that should be JPM's problem.

But that's not what happened here. For a less than 2% discount on the initial interest rate, PGW took on all of the risk of the bonds, including the risk of increased interest rates, the risk of bond insurer rating decline, and the risk of investors and their underwriter changing their minds.

That's exactly the opposite of how a 'bond' is supposed to work. A bond is supposed to provide the borrower with capital under the single requirement that they make timely interest and premium payments, which PGW continues to do. It should be just like a mortgage -- so long as the interest and premium is paid, a bank can't simply call a mulligan and ask for the money back if it's unhappy with the market for mortgages.

Indeed, the rigid nature of instruments like interest rate swaps is supposedly a big part of what's causing so much trouble on Wall Street, and why the Federal government has already provided banks $350 billion-plus in assistance to help them with these assets, with a loss of $64 billion and counting.

More questions need to be asked about this "deal" -- in the midst of systemic bank malfeasance and irrational exhuberance, how did PGW, and not JPM, end up on the losing end of a commonplace transaction? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Overlawyered leads us to this line from a Posner opinion in Mirafasihi v. Fleet Mortgage Co., decided December 30, 2008:

It is an example of the typical pathology of class action litigation, which is riven with conflicts of interest ...

The case alleged numerous violations of state (every state) consumer protection statutes and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Specifically, Fleet Mortgage Corporation wrongfully used private financial and personal information it had on home mortgages to solicit (with deceptive practices, no less) 1.6 million of its homeowners with offers for financial services. 190,000 of them took the bait and purchased some of these services.

Suit was filed with two proposed classes, one for the 15% who were financial victims and one for the 85% who were 'merely' privacy victims. A settlement was eventually negotiated and approved simultaneously with class certification.

It was an awesome deal: the 1.4 million who merely had their privacy illegally violated so that a national bank could attempt to swindle them received nothing. Nothing despite state statutes imposing an average penalty-per-violation of over $1,000.

Wait, that's not fair, they did get something: they were to be precluded from ever filing suit individually.

Judge Posner was right: the situation presented a huge conflict of interest. Fleet almost certainly exploited the fact that the same lawyers represented both classes, and so likely deliberately negotiated with the intent to split the 190,000 financial victims from the 1.4 million privacy victims. The quote referenced above comes from this passage in Posner’s opinion:

We are disheartened that the litigation by the information-sharing class has been allowed to drag on for eight years, when it had no merit—and that as a matter of law, without need to take evidence. It is an example of the typical pathology of class action litigation, which is riven with conflicts of interest, as we discussed recently in Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra, 547 F.3d at 744–46. The lawyers for the class could not concede the utter worthlessness of their claim because they wanted an award of attorneys’ fees. The lawyers for Fleet were reluctant to argue the utter worthlessness of the claim because they were able to negotiate a settlement that cost their client virtually nothing—provided they did not take such a strong stand that it jeopardized the class lawyers’ shot at a generous award of attorneys’ fees, and hence the settlement.

That’s all well and good, and it is exactly why we permit members of a proposed class action settlement to file objections to the proposed settlement.

And that is what happened here: some of the 1.4 million homeowners whose privacy was intentionally violated as part of a fraud objected to the settlement on the grounds that they would receive nothing and no steps were going to be taken to ensure that neither Fleet nor anyone else would do this again.

The district court denied the first objection and approved the settlement, so the objectors appealed and won. The district court then approved a newly negotiated settlement with the privacy victims getting nothing, but with a quarter million going to consumer law public interest attorneys.

The objectors appealed again and won again.

The district court then went back, looked at the value of their claims, and concluded it was right the first two times. It also awarded, for the twice-successful appeals, $18,750 to the objectors' attorneys.

For reference, an appeal in a basic slip-and-fall case will cost at least $15,000 in hourly fees. Most humdrum state tort appeals cost between $20,000 and $50,000.

So what did Posner do on the third appeal? Blamed the objectors and their lawyers, forced them to be part of a settlement that extinguishes their claims for nothing, and affirmed the paltry attorneys' fee award for two prior successful appeals to the exact same court for which Posner was writing, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Then he accused the objectors' attorneys of "chutzpah" for daring to request fees on par with the original attorneys, the one's Posner accused of representing clients amid a conflict of interest.

Posner continued by blaming the district court for insufficiently analyzing the merits of plaintiff’s claims, apparently missing the irony of his own court waiting for the third appeal to point out that plaintiffs’ federal claims were "waived" before the first appeal and that the objectors' state claims had been “worthless” on their face the whole time.

And so the “typical pathology of class action litigation, which is riven with conflicts of interest” continued unabated, with the objectors and their attorneys penalized with foreclosed claims and massive losses in fees for only winning two out of three appeals, on grounds that evaded everyone for years except Posner.

Chutzpah, indeed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I so often see the Board of Directors at a company acting badly that it’s almost is heartening to see things done the right way.

After a protracted period of familial disputes over the company, including a prior lawsuit, one side sent a Demand Letter, as is proper, alleging various Board members “breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in wrongful, self-serving and bad faith acts and omissions … which have resulted in catastrophic injury to [the Company] and corresponding and substantial loss of value to [the challenger’s] stock [in the Company].”

That prompted a Board Meeting where:

Attorney Sonnenfeld discussed the Demand Letter, corresponding ALI Principles, and the duty of care owed by the board to respond to the Demand Letter. He advised, 'evaluation of the demand should be made by independent and disinterested directors.' At that point, [the Members accused of wrongdoing] were excused from the meeting. 'The meeting continued, attended by the independent and disinterested Directors … ' At that point, Attorney Sonnenfeld discussed the proper formation of a special litigation committee to address the issues in the Demand Letter. He advised that such committee retain independent counsel 'to develop a response to the demand letter' and he provided a preliminary list of candidates and their qualifications. He further 'discussed the possible role and functions of the Committee in conjunction with the independent counsel.' "

Lemenestrel v. Warden, 2008 PA Super 295 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)(emphasis added).

The company then hired independent counsel to perform an internal investigation of the claims, who concluded “there was no basis or evidence upon which to support a suit by the Company against the Wardens and that, therefore, pursuing those claims through litigation would not be in the best interests of the Company.”

Since the Board followed all the appropriate procedures, the Superior Court upheld the Court of Common Pleas’ holding that the Board’s decision not to pursue litigation was protected under the business judgment rule:

'Decisions regarding litigation by or on behalf of a corporation, including shareholder derivative actions, are business decisions as much as any other financial decision. As such, they are within the province of the board of directors.' The Cuker Court cautioned that, 'if a court makes a preliminary determination that a business decision was made under proper circumstances, however that concept is currently defined, then the business judgment rule prohibits the court from going further and examining the merits of the underlying business decision.' In other words: 'Without considering the merits of the action, a court should determine the validity of the board's decision to terminate the litigation; if that decision was made in accordance with the appropriate standards, then the court should dismiss the derivative action prior to litigation on the merits.'

Id., citing Cuker v. Mikalauskas, 547 Pa. 600, 692 A.2d 1042 (Pa. 1997), which adopted The American Law Institute's Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations ("ALI Principles"), particularly sections 7.07-7.10 and 7.13.

I'm sure the internal investigation was both a substantial burden on time and attention and a considerable expense, but look what it accomplished. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Yesterday we discussed the outrageous attorneys fees in the Robertson v. Princeton suit, which amounted to $80 million in pre-trial litigation costs and $40 million in projected trial costs. Based on those fees, it seems each side had a team of 6 lawyers working all day, every day, for all 6.5 years of the litigation, all for a case more comparable in size to a complicated personal injury / wrongful death case than a major commercial or business case.

It's time to ask some basic business / commercial litigation questions.

Did the lawyers engage in 'total war' litigation? Did the clients understand that decision?

Unfortunately, Mercer County (in New Jersey, where the litigation took place) doesn't keep its hearing and docket lists up permanently or publish its orders. Did the Robertsons decide it would be tactically advantageous to pummel Princeton with discovery requests? Did Princeton decide it would be tactically advantageous to stonewall every discovery request? Did everything require a motion or two?

When there's a paying client (as opposed to an insurance carrier or a contingent fee agreement), most litigators will sit down with their client early in the case and ask: how do you want me to handle it? If a client asks for 'the works,' an experienced, tough litigator would have no trouble churning through $500,000 in fees on a simple bread-and-butter business contract dispute. Add in any variables -- like sophisticated accounting, extensive documentation or novel issues -- and you'll start the process at $1 million, breaching $5 million well before trial.

But that's still not $40 million apiece.

Did the clients understand the workflow at the law firms?

Even if we generously assume that some of the $80 million comes from work in the years preceding the actual lawsuit, we still have whole teams of lawyers working full time.

Pareto's 80/20 rule applies just as much to litigation as it does to any other business. Did either of these clients recognize what, exactly, the firms were doing?

• Did the lawyers assert privilege as broadly as possible and then force litigation on every issue?
• Did the lawyers apply any thought to whom they should depose, or did they depose everyone who arguably was aware of discoverable facts?
• Was every brief right at the page limit, chock full of barely-relevant cases that took hours to track down even on issues where the judge had considerable discretion?

That is to say, did either party hire a liitigation consultant, ask their in-house counsel, or use their common sense to assess if the work was really needed or if the litigation attorneys were churning through hours as fast as they could?

Did the lawyers and clients consider alternative dispute resolution?

The core of Robertson involved dry and technical issues of legal interpretation, accounting and oversight. There was no "pain and suffering" component. Witness credibility was not the critical factor. All of the main reasons a party would either want non-lawyers or a jury of twelve reviewing a case were absent.

Why, then, did the parties subject the Mercer County Superior Court to this punishment? Did the clients really understand the ramifications of staying in state court and the delays and additional attorneys' fees that usually come with such a decision? Did the parties even consider arbitration?

In an antitrust case much larger than Robertson (a different antitrust case from the one mentioned above), Visa, Mastercard and AmEx resolved their multi-billion-dollar largely-legal dispute in arbitration. Why not here? Discovery probably would have gone much more smoothly, with Princeton more easily obtaining confidentiality and the Robertsons more easily obtaining documents.

Did the lawyers and clients consider alternative fee arrangements?

The Robertsons, as plaintiffs, paid an effective fee of 44% of their total recovery of $90 million.

A 40% gross-recovery contingent fee agreement is not uncommon in complex, expensive and/or risky business disputes; here, however, the client received none of the benefits of a contingent fee. As best I can tell, the lawyers bore no risk and paid no expenses out of pocket -- the clients did.

Did the Robertsons consider a contingent fee agreement? 40% would have been cheaper and during the six years of litigation their foundation could have held onto the money, investing it tax-free. They could also have done a blended agreement, with the Robertsons covering costs and expenses and the attorneys claiming, say, one-third of the recovery.

Princeton, in turn, paid $40 million over six years to defend a claim they later settled for $90 million. Making matters worse, the $40 million likely came in the unpredictable form that managers hate, with huge swings depending on the litigation, invoiced in a manner completely opaque to non-lawyers and lawyers not familiar with the case.

Did Princeton consider, say, a flat fee? The controversy had been brewing for almost forty years, with Princeton well aware of the major factual issues. The major legal issues are all apparent on the face of the complaint, which is only 68 pages long. Obviously, there will be an extensive accounting, lots of discovery and document review, and a couple big motions for summary judgment with regard to characterizations of various payments and the duties of your clients.

It's a big case but it's not unbounded in scope. It's not a class action or antitrust case sprawling over dozens of parties and whole industries; it's a dispute between a university and a foundation over a specific sum of money and a specific grant.

You could do it with the "feeding frenzy" team: two lead attorneys and a handful of associates and paralegals.

They could have blended that fee as well: Princeton covers external costs and expenses, like the accounting firm and deposition costs, with a flat fee payable every six months for attorneys' fees. Going off of our big firm average hourly rate of $348, estimating the case will take up half of their 12,000 billable hours per year available time, puts us at $1 million every six months. Princeton would have ended the case for less than $18 million, including all costs and expenses. 

These are all just ideas, any one of which would have likely saved millions.

Was anyone really looking out for the client? Are non-profits the new profit centers for lawyers?

Maybe in the end we have another example of the dangers of using "OPM." No individual or for-profit enterprise paid a dime for this excess and waste; it all came out of "charity."

The Robertsons paid for the suit via the Banbury Fund, which they control. As best I can tell, they exhausted most of the Fund's assets on this suit, though they are being reimbursed under the settlement.

Princeton paid for it out of their multi-billion-dollar endowment; as part of the settlement, the funds expended will be deducted from the Robertson Foundation as it is dissolved into Princeton's general endowment.

So, there you have it. $80 million in litigation fees to move $50 million from one charity to another. Princeton President Shirley M. Tilghman called the whole case "a tragedy" because the legal fees could have been spent on education. I'd agree, except that I can't help but wonder what steps Princeton could have taken to reign in their costs; you can't blame the other side for everything.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thomas Friedman misses the boat:

I have no sympathy for Madoff. But the fact is, his alleged Ponzi scheme was only slightly more outrageous than the "legal" scheme that Wall Street was running, fueled by cheap credit, low standards and high greed. What do you call giving a worker who makes only $14,000 a year a nothing-down and nothing-to-pay-for-two-years mortgage to buy a $750,000 home, and then bundling that mortgage with 100 others into bonds — which Moody's or Standard & Poors rate AAA — and then selling them to banks and pension funds the world over? That is what our financial industry was doing. If that isn't a pyramid scheme, what is?

Funny thing is, there really was a "legal" scheme connected to Madoff: it appears a substantial part of the money invested with him was not directly from clients, but through investment advisers who were specifically being paid huge sums of money (some on the 2% investment / 20% returns hedge fund fee scale) to perform due diligence and to ensure the investments were safe.

A number of these "advisers" -- perhaps all of them given the obviousness of the fraud -- did absolutely nothing at all to earn their money other than hand the money over to Madoff, no questions asked.

Textbook breach of fiduciary duty. If they misrepresented what due diligence they did, it's fraud, too.

There will be a reckoning.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Breach of fiduciary duty class actions under the Employee Retirement and Income Securities Act ("ERISA") are as common as the day is long. If an employee pension plan loses a lot of value, odds are good there will be a lawsuit.

Unsurprisingly, the federal courts have clamped down on these lawsuits over the years. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) just reaffirmed,

in the context of an ERISA plan that offers employees the option of investing in a fund consisting solely of the employer's own securities, there is a "presumption that a fiduciary acted prudently in investing in employer securities" and that, to rebut the presumption, "a 'plaintiff must show that the ERISA fiduciary could not have believed reasonably that continued adherence to the [Plan's] direction was in keeping with the settlor's expectations of how a prudent trustee would operate.'"

Ward v. Avaya Inc., (3d Cir. 2008, November 13, 2008, Jordan, J.)(on appeal from the District of New Jersey). The Third Circuit again rejected that "a company to be on the brink of bankruptcy before a fiduciary is required to divest a plan of employer securities," but held, in essence, that if the plaintiffs cannot show the stock plummeting and staying in the gutter, then they cannot win as a matter of law. In holding the plaintiffs cannot overcome the presumption as a matter of law, the Court describes:

At the outset of the class period immediately following the spin-off on September 30, 2000, Avaya's stock traded at $ 22.18 a share. As Ward takes pains to point out, it initially lost much of that value, and by August 2, 2002, after fluctuating significantly for some time, it reached a low of $ 1.15 a share. By April 25, 2003, the day after Ward's Count II class period ended, Avaya stock was trading at $ 3.24 per share. Following the end of the class period, however, Avaya's stock continued to rise and, by August 2003, was trading at around $ 10.00 a share. Between October and December 2003, the stock was trading between $ 12.00 and $ 14.00 a share. During 2004, Avaya stock usually closed at between $ 12.00 and $ 16.00 a share. Commensurate with its rising stock price, Avaya reported significant positive net income in 2003 and 2004. Further, like the plaintiff in Edgar and unlike the plaintiff in Moench, Ward's complaint fails to point to anything other than Avaya's financial struggles to support his breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The frustrating part here is that of course the plaintiff had no direct evidence, their case was dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) before they could conduct discovery. The message from the Third Circuit is thus loud and clear: if the company's stock has regained a substantial portion of its value, don't bother filing suit.

I have plenty of sympathy for the defendants here, directors who almost certainly did, in fact, believe they were simultaneously acting in the best interests of the company and the retirement plan beneficiaries. No could blame them for believing in the eventual success of their own company, and the company did, in fact, regain at least two-thirds of its prior market value, more than 10 times its lowest value just two years prior to that.

But that's precisely the problem -- of course the directors will believe in the eventual success of their own company. Indeed, aside from company officers, who could possibly be less objective about their own company? They're supposed to believe in the company's success, even against the odds.

The core problem, as the Third Circuit noted, is that "as the financial state of the company deteriorates … fiduciaries who double as directors of the corporation often begin to serve two masters. And the more uncertain the loyalties of the fiduciary, the less discretion it has to act." At what point should we expect that a "prudent" director will recognize their own lack of objectivity and step aside? The answer from the Third Circuit appears to be "never," at least not if the stock has regained substantial value.

Maybe, on balance, that makes the most sense, a "no serious harm, no foul" rule. The stock market is inherently unpredictable; if, for example, the directors had moved assets out of Avaya in the spring of 2003, the retirement fund likely would have missed out on Avaya's dramatic rise in the fall and winter of 2003. You don't invest your money in a 100% company fund to go willy-nilly at the first sign of trouble.

Nonetheless, though there are many plausible legitimate explanations, it's troubling to see issues like that decided on a motion to dismiss, denying plaintiffs the chance to see what the explanation actually was. The directors here could have completely breached their fiduciary duties and, after getting 'lucky,' still have cost beneficiaries one-third of their pension's value, potentially even more when compared to the fund's hypothetical value if it had been managed properly. Yet, the case was over before it started, merely because the fund lost 'only' one-third of its value as compared to value on the plaintiff's class certification date.

Finally, just how common are ERISA breach of fiduciary suits? So common that the Third Circuit held plaintiffs claims were also barred by a prior class action settlement in Reinhart v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D. N.J.).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

May an attorney director of a school for the blind, act as both director-client and attorney, control legal services, not consult with the board, and build up $250,00[?] in fees to his own firm?

It's not inherently wrong for a director of an organization to hire their own firm to perform work for the organization.

Such 'self-dealing,' though, must be fair and must occur in the open. What you have described sounds awfully suspicious -- no director of any organization, non-profit or for-profit, can simply hire themselves (or their firms) to do work without any oversight whatsoever.

You may first want to check into what oversight there has been of the relationship; perhaps it has been approved, but through other channels. For example, chief executives (or other officers) usually have the power to hire third-parties to perform work for the organization without consulting the directors for each and every transaction.

If, however, he's doing everything on his own, and the other directors object, then there's a problem, and you may want to speak with an attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Pennsylvania business / partnership question:

Can I remove my property from a failing business without my partners knowledge and not face criminal charges?

My reply:

In theory, yes. In practice, no, don't remove anything without your partners' knowledge.

Generally,  partners are entitled to retrieve property that has remained in their personal ownership, but not entitled to seize, unilaterally, assets that are owned by the partnership (because such assets are owned by all the partners together).

You might think it is crystal clear that whatever you're talking about is "your" property, but if you are wrong, you may in fact end up facing criminal charges as well as a civil lawsuit.

I strongly advise you speak with an attorney who can review all of partnership material and make an assessment about the status of the property in question.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal jury in Nevada last week awarded $60 million to a Las Vegas man who alleged Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. and the Unum Group denied in bad faith his claim for disability benefits.

This is one of those “be careful what you wish for” cases. In a previous trial, a jury awarded Plaintiff $11.6 million but it was overturned on appeal. So the case was tried again and the second jury awards five times what the first jury awarded.

I see that a lot, particularly in tort cases with verdicts over $1 million, and I don't think it's a coincidence.

At a tort (negligence, malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful death, etc.) trial, the defendant usually holds most of the cards. They generally know which stones you overturned on discovery and which ones you did not, and they know which evidence that you have his most embarrassing and which evidence you do not have is most absolving.

More importantly, they were there. They really know what they did and did not do, and what they were thinking when they did it, and they certainly know what they intend to say.

It does not matter how many depositions you took -- you could have had people testifying for days -- and how much written discovery you collected, trial will still be full of surprises. Even if no new facts are revealed, you will see facts presented in a new light, often at odds with the light they were presented in pleadings and during discovery. (And you will have to quickly react to this new version of the truth: don't even try to argue to the jury that a fact was "presented in a different light during discovery.")

Trial makes the defendant show their cards, clearing away their natural advantage in a tort suit. You will see the strongest defense arguments and the most favorable defense evidence. More importantly, while you can always run a mock jury and see how neutral non-lawyers react to your evidence, you will never get a chance, pre-trial, to practice cross examining a defendant to see what evidence makes them squirm, babble, or obviously lie. A deposition will give you hints, but it will never show you what will really make a defendant fold or what they'll do when the chips are down.

My view is that these big cases aren't 50-50 or longshots, they're slam dunks if you have all the evidence, know where the defendant wants to go, and know where the defendant doesn't want to go. That's how a "big" verdict becomes a "blockbuster" verdict the second time around.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I just found out a few months ago my lawyer died. I also found out he recieved money from a claim I have with workmans comp. My workmas comp went bankrupt. and is in recievership He recieved money June 20 2003 and cashed the check July 3 2003, I had no idea he recieved and cashed the check till his son ( who is also a lawyer) contacted me and said he would handle the case.
I found out about the check when reviewing the case with his son.
The son said his father didn't keep good records and that was noway they could tell if he recieved, or if he sent me my part of the check.
I called the office in charge of releasing the funds and they sent me a copy of the cashed check and my name was forged on the check.
Is there anything I can do?

... You should contact the Pennsylvania Lawyer's Fund for Client Security. You can find their contact information at http://www.palawfund.com/

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link