Earlier this week The National Law Journal released their sixth annual Plaintiffs' Hot List, a self-described "unscientific survey of the litigation scene," with a focus on "exemplary firms that devote at least half of their resources to plaintiffs' work, and which have achieved at least one significant win during that period."

The list, which runs to a bakers dozen of plaintiff side firms, is heavy on the securities litigation firms, with all but one firm having a securities litigation practice. Another common theme - how large some of these firms have become just in the last few years. While few would even be considered midsize firms in this age of mega-firms, it is telling that so many plaintiff side firms now have more than 50 attorneys, when as recently as 2003 that threshold was broken by just a small handful of firms.

Here is the list together with a brief blurb about each firm from the article.

Berger & Montague

Philadelphia has a reputation for canny, assertive and effective plaintiffs' firms, and Berger & Montague is a case in point. Since David Berger founded the firm in 1970 to pursue securities actions, it has had a hand in some of the most important employment discrimination, mass torts, and human and civil rights claims.

Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz

Long known for blazing trails in securities and shareholder class actions, New York-based Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz has been active lately in litigation over the value of companies being taken private.

Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann

Also known for its work in securities class actions, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann claims more than $12 billion in recoveries during the past five years. The firm was sole or co-lead counsel in five of the 10 largest securities class actions to date.

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins

Noteworthy cases include In re Cardinal Health Inc. Securities Litigation, where the $600 million settlement in this accounting fraud case was the largest to date in the 6th Circuit.

Grant & Eisenhofer

Grant & Eisenhofer celebrated its 10th birthday this year by expanding its New York office and opening a new office in Washington. Noteworthy cases include In the Matter of Royal Dutch Shell Settlement, where the firm took advantage of a relatively new Dutch law to win a $450 million settlement for European shareholders.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

Carl Hagens and Steve Berman founded their firm in 1993 to represent plaintiffs in complex multiparty and class litigation...Today the firm has 43 attorneys in offices in Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston.

Korein Tillery

Korein Tillery is a 20-attorney law firm with offices in St. Louis and Chicago and a reputation for aggressive prosecution of insurance, securities, antitrust and consumer fraud litigation. Notable for its $10.1 billion judgment in 2003 against Phillip Morris in the first consumer action over 'light' cigarettes, the firm has distinguished itself during the past year with actions involving prescription drugs and consumer protection.

Labaton Sucharow

Labaton Sucharow, a 60-attorney New York firm, bills itself as 'a champion of investor and consumer rights.' Noteworthy cases include JDS Uniphase, which is slated to go to trial this week and In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, the largest settlement agreement to date in an options-backdating case.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein

The firm has had a hand in some of the most important cases litigated since its founding in 1972, including actions involving the Exxon Valdez oil spill and billions of dollars in assets seized from Holocaust victims and Nazi slave laborers. In recent years the firm has recovered more than $700 million in state antitrust settlements against Microsoft Corp.

Phillips & Cohen

Qui tam is the thing at Phillips & Cohen. Name partner John Phillips helped draft the legislation when Congress updated the Civil War-era law that allows whistleblowers to file suit against corrupt enterprises on the government's behalf.

Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler

Noteworthy cases include In re Tyco International Ltd. Securities Litigation, where, after years in litigation, Tyco agreed in May to pay more than $3 billion, In the Matter of Royal Dutch Shell Settlement, where the take for the plaintiffs will be approximately $450 million, and In re Delphi Corp. Securities Litigation.

Seeger Weiss

The attorneys at New York-based Seeger Weiss are all on the dewy side of 50, but rank among the country's top plaintiffs' lawyers. Name partner Christopher A. Seeger, for example, was appointed plaintiffs' co-lead attorney in the Vioxx multidistrict litigation in New Orleans, and in 2005 was chief negotiator in a $700 million settlement for patients who took Eli Lilly & Co.'s anti-schizophrenia drug Zyprexa.

Whatley Drake & Kallas

Whatley Drake & Kallas was founded in Birmingham, Ala., just nine years ago, but is fast building a reputation for its leadership role in class actions that have recovered billions of dollars and forced significant corporate reforms.

October 22, 2007

A New Addition to The Securities Class Action Trial List?

Way back in 2003, our predecessor at SLW started a list of all of the securities class actions that had gone to trial since the PSLRA was enacted. The results were updated several times over the years, but until this week, it appeared that the dearth of trials was set to continue.

But that may be about to change. A quick look at the calendar of Judge Claudia Wilken reveals that jury selection has begun in the In re JDS Uniphase Securities Litigation and the trial is set to commence as soon as tomorrow.

The Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds is the lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP is lead counsel. Morrison & Foerster LLP and Heller Ehrman LLP represent JDS Uniphase (NASDAQ: JDSU) and the individual defendants.

We will keep you updated as events unfold.

Full disclosure: Once upon a time, the author worked on the JDS Uniphase litigation, representing one of the sub-class representatives, the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article

Back To Top

October 5, 2007

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Inquiry Notice Standard

In a little noticed opinion earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set forth an inquiry notice standard to be applied in securities suits brought under Section 10(b).

That standard, described as the "the inquiry-plus-reasonable-diligence test," is similar to the standard applied by the Tenth Circuit. See, e.g., Sterlin v. Biomune Sys., 154 F.3d 1191, 1201 (10th Cir. 1998). In Sterlin, the Tenth Circuit held that inquiry notice “triggers an investor's duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the ... statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud.”

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a multi-part analysis for determining when an investor is on inquiry notice of facts giving rise to their securities fraud claim.

The first part of the analysis is split into further steps and will "determine when the plaintiff had inquiry notice of the facts giving rise to his or her securities fraud claim." The standard - "when there exists sufficient suspicion of fraud to cause a reasonable investor to investigate the matter further."

Once a plaintiff is on inquiry notice, the analysis asks "when the investor, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the facts constituting the alleged fraud."

The inquiry notice standard in the Ninth Circuit is objective and looks at the facts under the “reasonable investor” or “reasonable person” standard of other Circuits. See, e.g., Newman v. Warnaco Group, Inc., 335 F.3d 187, 193 (2d Cir. 2003); Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 260 F.3d 239, 252 (3d Cir. 2001)

The second part of the inquiry examines whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in investigating the facts underlying the alleged fraud. This is also meant to be an objective analysis, and "necessarily entails an assessment of the plaintiff's particular circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable investor." Moreover, one of the enumerated factors to be considered is "whether the plaintiff was given any assurances by a defendant after beginning to investigate the suspicious circumstances that would have delayed discovery of the fraud by a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position."

The Court described the overall test as placing a "considerable burden in demonstrating, at the summary judgment stage, that the plaintiff's claim is time barred," on the defendant.

The case is Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., No. 05-15704, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 2874369 (9th Cir., Oct. 4, 2007).

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article

Back To Top

October 2, 2007

Welcome to Securities Litigation Watch's New Address

Welcome to the new home (and address) of Securities Litigation Watch.

We have been integrated into the newly rebranded RiskMetrics Group.

Please drop us a line if you experience any difficulties with the RSS feeds, subscriptions, or anything else.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article

Back To Top

Debating Stoneridge - Upcoming Conference

This Friday, October 5, the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University is hosting a half-day conference on the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta.

The conference, entitled Scheme Liability, Section 10(b), and Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta, will also feature a debate between Eric Alan Isaacson of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Ashley C. Parrish of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Full conference details are available here, and remote users can access the event through this live webcast.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article

Back To Top