Special Master Delays High-Stakes Report on $75M Class Action Fee Request
A special master looking into potential overbilling in a $75 million attorney fee request has delayed the findings of a report he said could have “serious and far-reaching adverse ramifications” for plaintiffs firms in the case and “for the practice of the plaintiffs' class action bar.”
March 06, 2018 at 07:34 PM
4 minute read
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
A special master looking into potential overbilling in a $75 million attorney fee request has delayed the findings of a report he said could have “serious and far-reaching adverse ramifications” for plaintiffs firms in the case and “for the practice of the plaintiffs' class action bar.”
Retired U.S. District Chief Judge Gerald Rosen of the Eastern District of Michigan, now of the JAMS mediation service, was appointed special master a year ago in a securities class action settlement with State Street Corp. after a federal judge raised concerns about the billing activities of three plaintiffs firms. In a Feb. 28 letter to the judge, Rosen asked that he extend a March 15 deadline for his report to be completed. That would give plaintiffs lawyers more time, he wrote, to respond to an 85-page expert report that New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers prepared for him as part of the investigation.
“Counsel pointed out that the stakes for their clients are extraordinarily high in this matter,” Rosen wrote. They told him “that if I were to adopt in my report the opinions of professor Gillers, there could potentially be serious and far-reaching adverse ramifications [for] at least some of the firms, and even beyond this investigation for the practice of the plaintiffs' class action bar and even for courts in class actions.”
On March 1, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf in Boston granted the request. The report is now due on April 23.
➤➤ Get class action news and commentary straight to your inbox with Critical Mass by Amanda Bronstad. Learn more and sign up here.
Attorneys from the three plaintiffs firms under investigation—New York's Labaton Sucharow, San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Thornton Law Firm in Boston—did not respond to requests for comment. Joan Lukey, a lawyer at Boston's Choate Hall & Stewart, who represents Labaton, also did not respond.
Last year, following a series of articles in The Boston Globe raising questions about Thornton's political donations and allegations of overbilling in the State Street case, the three firms admitted they double counted hours in the case. Wolf previously had approved a $300 million settlement of cases alleging State Street had overcharged pension fund clients in foreign currency trades. He also approved the fees but, in a letter to the court, Labaton Sucharow's David Goldsmith admitted “inadvertent errors” in the billing of staff attorneys who worked temporarily for the firm—a mistake that led to an additional $4.1 million in the fee request.
The three firms agreed to pay up to $2 million to cover the costs of the special master's probe. They have since raised unsuccessful objections about a consultant Rosen hired, John Toothman, calling him a “partisan advocate.”
On Sept. 29, Rosen asked for more time to complete his report, citing “recent events related to the discovery phrase of the investigation.” On Oct. 6, he asked for $1 million more, which Wolf granted. On Dec. 12, Rosen asked for a second extension due to “much more work than anticipated.”
According to Rosen's letter asking for a third and final extension, he retained Gillers to respond to a report by a plaintiffs attorneys' expert. Rosen said he provided Gillers' report on Feb. 23, but plaintiffs lawyers said they needed more time to respond. Plaintiffs lawyers also wanted to depose Gillers, the letter said.
“They also indicated that they may wish to retain an additional expert to address professor Gillers' report, which they contend constitute a 'novel' approach to Massachusetts attorney referrals. (We, of course, do not agree with that characterization of professor Gillers' report.),” Rosen wrote.
Plaintiffs lawyers planned to name that expert by March 10.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Corporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
- 2Goodwin, Polsinelli, Fox Rothschild Find New Phila. Offices
- 3Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 4How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 5A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250