As I've previously said, "Judges should consider whether [derivative shareholder settlements] actually create value for shareholders or amount to a rearranging of the deck chairs to create the illusion of value to justify attorneys' fees." Monday, I filed an appellate brief in the Seventh Circuit arguing both for the right of shareholders to appeal settlement approvals without jumping through the procedural hoop of intervention, and for courts to give teeth to Rule 23.1(a)'s requirement that a plaintiff in a derivative action adequately represent the shareholders—which, in my mind, means that a suit is brought for the benefit of shareholders, rather than plaintiffs' attorneys. (This settlement: $0 for the shareholders, up to $850,000 for the attorneys.) The case is No. 10-3285, Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley (7th Cir.). Earlier; more.
CCAF Seventh Circuit briefing on derivative shareholder suit standards
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Third Circuit argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen
- Dewey v. Volkswagen oral argument tomorrow
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- Day v. Persels & Associates
- Bad typography evidence of bad faith?
- Apple class actions
- Cobell v. Salazar oral argument in DC Circuit
- Herzfeld & Rubin, Volkswagen, and Stockholm Syndrome
- Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
- Behind the paywall
- "A Public Letter From the Cobell Lawyers Prompts Ethics and Harassment Concerns"
- Around the web, January 27
- McClintic v. Lithia Motors