Judge in Case Over State Street Overbilling Is Considering Appointing New Class Counsel
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf in Boston said he would address concerns by three plaintiffs firms currently serving as class counsel to State Street customers about the deadline to propose redactions to the report, which the special master filed under seal on May 14.
May 29, 2018 at 05:32 PM
6 minute read
A federal judge has set a hearing for Wednesday to decide whether to appoint new class counsel in a securities class action against State Street following a special master's report into potential overbilling in a $75 million attorney fee request.
In an order on Friday, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf in Boston said he would address concerns by three plaintiffs firms currently serving as class counsel to State Street customers—San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, New York's Labaton Sucharow and the Thornton Law Firm in Boston—about the deadline to propose redactions to the report, which the special master, retired U.S. District Chief Judge Gerald Rosen of the Eastern District of Michigan, filed under seal on May 14. Wolf also said he would address the scope of materials that Rosen wants to make public.
But Wolf also ordered that the executive director of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, the lead plaintiff in the case, and “anyone else required to act” for the pension fund, show up at the hearing, which would address whether new class counsel should be appointed in light of a potential conflict of interest.
The special master's report and recommendations, he wrote, “raise questions concerning: whether ATRS properly discharged its duties as lead plaintiff” and “whether ATRS should be replaced as lead plaintiff; whether there is now a conflict between the interests of customer class counsel and the class; and whether new class counsel should be appointed to provide independent advice to the class whether or not ATRS continues as lead plaintiff.”
Lawyers for the three firms serving as class counsel did not respond to requests for comment. Lieff Cabraser's Richard Heimann is representing the firm. Labaton's counsel is Joan Lukey, practice group leader of the complex trial and appellate litigation at Choate Hall & Stewart in Boston. And the Thornton Law Firm's attorney is Brian Kelly of Nixon Peabody.
Barrett & Singal's William Sinnott and Elizabeth McEvoy, Boston attorneys who represent Rosen, declined to comment. State Street's attorneys at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, did not respond to a request for comment.
Wolf appointed Rosen a year ago to look into potential overbilling in a $300 million settlement of securities class actions alleging State Street overcharged pension fund clients in connection with foreign currency trades.
The three firms admitted to double counting hours relating to staff attorneys but continued to defend their fee request. They also agreed to pay up to $2 million for the special master's investigation.
Rosen has delayed his report several times and asked for more money.
In February, he sought a delay to give plaintiffs lawyers more time 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. He noted at that time that his final report could have “serious and far-reaching adverse ramifications” for plaintiffs firms in the case and “for the practice of the plaintiffs' class action bar.”
Last month, Rosen wrote that “our work has been made considerably more extensive and costly” after the plaintiffs firms had retained eight experts who provided “a more complete and informed view of the case.”
His investigation resulted in about 10,000 pages, including dozens of depositions, according to court filings. Wolf had ordered plaintiffs firms to file motions for redactions to the report by May 31.
On May 24, the three plaintiffs firms sought an extension to June 11 to submit those redactions and raised concerns about the timing of the redacted report's release to the public. They also insisted that only lawyers from Wilmer, and not their client, State Street, review the unredacted documents.
In two separate motions, they asked to limit the materials that the special master intends to file as part of his redacted report. Rosen said he was bound by court order to file “a record of all evidence,” but the plaintiffs firms said such a move “threatens to drag the parties and the court into an extraordinarily expensive and unnecessary redaction process” and inundate the court with “a truck-load of bankers' boxes,” according to court documents.
“Customer class counsel have already paid $3.8 million to fund the special master's work, in addition to incurring significant legal fees and spending substantial time responding to the investigation,” they wrote in a memorandum submitted on Friday. “Filing the entire discovery record, and the attendant redaction process, would be costly for the firms and would unnecessarily drain judicial resources.”
In his Friday order, Wolf granted an extension until June 5, with a “possible further extension” to June 11.
Ted Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, flagged the State Street special master's report in the $115 million data breach settlement with Anthem. In that case, another special master released a report on April 24 recommending cutting nearly $9 million from a $38 million fee request by four law firms, including Lieff Cabraser, due to contract attorney rates and duplicative billing.
Frank, who filed an amicus brief in the State Street case last year, said “it's hard to imagine that there isn't at least the perception of a material issue affecting Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(g),” referring to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern the filing of class actions and appointment of class counsel. “And the special master's earlier reports to the court requesting extensions and requesting giving class counsel more time to brief the case lead me to believe that we were going to see something explosive.”
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
- 1How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 2A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
- 3From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Julie Cantor, Associate General Counsel at Studs, Inc.
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Chris Correnti, President & CEO & General Counsel AGC America, Inc.
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