Judge Nixed Settlement, $7.5M Attorney Fees, in Challenge to Xerox, Fujifilm Tie-Up
The proposed settlement, announced last May, came as a win for activist investors Carl Icahn and Darwin Deason, who agreed to drop claims in a consolidated class action in exchange for the resignation of Xerox's CEO and five other board members.
September 13, 2019 at 05:23 PM
3 minute read
A Manhattan Supreme Court judge has rejected class certification and a proposed settlement in a shareholder lawsuit over Xerox Corp.'s planned tie-up with Japanese multinational photography firm Fujifilm Holdings Corp., saying the deal was unfair to Xerox investors.
The proposed settlement, announced last May, came as a win for activist investors Carl Icahn and Darwin Deason, who agreed to drop claims in a consolidated class action in exchange for the resignation of Xerox's CEO and five other board members.
The deal, which scrapped the $6.1 billion merger to give Fuji a majority stake in Xerox, included $7.5 million in attorney fees for class counsel, gave Icahn and Deason control of the Xerox board. Fuji has since filed its own lawsuit, seeking $1 billion are a result of the scuttled transaction.
A class of Xerox shareholders, however, had not been certified by the time the settlement was announced, and a group of 34 investors opposed the agreement on the grounds that it did not adequately compensate the class.
In a 15-page ruling, Justice Barry R. Ostrager said that Deason and Icahn did not adequately represent represent the class and found the deal not to be in the best interests of the shareholders. The settlement, he said, sought to bind a class that had not been certified to major corporate actions, without providing any monetary relief in exchange for broad releases of derivative claims against Xerox directors.
The ruling also knocked out the proposed $7.5 million award of attorney fees to class counsel from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Grant & Eisenhofer.
"There were not exigent circumstances requiring purported class counsel to enter into the [settlement] other than the desire of Deason and Icahn to achieve control of the Xerox board, which purported class counsel facilitated," Ostrager said in an opinion published dated Sept. 10.
"The net result of the actions of the purported class representatives and purported class counsel was to transfer control of a public corporation to Messrs. Deason and Icahn via a private agreement that offered no tangible benefits to the interests of the class," he said.
The ruling was filed Thursday, according to an online docket.
An attorney for the proposed class did not immediately return a call Friday seeking comment on the ruling.
Eduard Korsinsky, founding partner of Levi & Korsinsky who represented objecting shareholder Carmen Ribbe, said his team would continue to press claims on behalf of Xerox shareholders who were harmed in the deal.
"We're gratified that Justice Ostrager saw our point of view, and we look forward to litigating the case on behalf of shareholders of Xerox, who have been damaged considerably," he said.
Counsel for Xerox could not immediately be reached for comment, and an attorney for Fuji declined to comment on the ruling.
The objecting shareholders were represented by attorneys from Levi & Korsinsky and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York. Xerox was represented by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York, and Fuji was represented by attorneys from Morrison & Foerster.
The case was captioned In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation.
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
© 2025 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‘Issue of First Impression’: New York Judge Clears Coinbase Appeal Amid Crypto Regulatory Clash
4 minute readMeet the Long Island Judge Tapped to Be US Attorney for Eastern District of New York
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Fenwick and Baker & Hostetler Add DC Partners, as Venable and Brownstein Hire Policy Advisers
- 2H&R Block Accused of Negligence in Data Breach Suit
- 3Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
- 4Following Treasury Hack, Do Federal Cybersecurity Standards Need an Update?
- 5Former Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
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