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.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Tomayto, Tomahto

A few quick follow ups to some recent blog posts are in order, and both involve the Tellabs case, currently pending before the Supreme Court.

First, in the "everything is related somehow category," in researching our recent whitepaper, Accountability Goes Global: International Investors and U.S. Securities Class Actions, we learned that the lead plaintiff in the Tellabs litigation, Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., is an Israeli institutional investor. We apologize for not plugging our hard work earlier.

Second, last week, we discussed the semantic debate that references to short form names for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act engendered.

Our intent, here at SLW World Headquarters, was to poke gentle fun at the issue, along the lines of the George Gershwin song, Let's Call The Whole Thing Off. For those 7 readers that may not recall the song, the song is most well known for verses such as "you say tomayto and I like tomahto," that compare different regional dialects. Lyrics can be found here.

An alert reader pointed us to this essay by DLA Piper partner David Priebe, which vociferously argues that the preferred defense firm terminology ("The Reform Act") was not simply the only choice, but that the preferred plaintiff firm terminology ("PSLRA") was in fact Orwellian Newspeak.

Quote of note:

Referring to the Reform Act as "PSLRA" is squelching political speech and political thought. Good defense lawyers - and, I submit, the most honest objective observers - should always make certain that the name by which the statute is referred reflects and displays its reformist nature.

I consider myself both honest and objective (who doesn't?) but I can't bring myself to be forced to call a statute by the preferred terminology someone else has chosen for me, particularly when the argument is premised on a novel revolving around a totalitarian and dystopian future.

After finding our dog-eared copy of 1984, and remembering that we also owned Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, we decided that the official word of the day will be dystopia.

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

Back To Top

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Accountability Goes Global: Part Deux

The companion paper to our upcoming webcast is now available for public consumption here.

Some key findings:

- The first instance we were able to find of an international institutional investor seeking to serve as a lead plaintiff was in 1999, in the Network Associates litigation.

- Every year since then has seen at least one international institutional investor seeking to serve as a lead plaintiff in a class action.

- International institutional investors sought to serve as lead plaintiffs 182 times in 98 different cases during that period.

- The cases where these investors were involved were not limited to those involving non-US companies - Prominent examples included Delphi, Coca Cola, General Motors, and Dell.

- The international institutional investors that filed lead plaintiff motions were from 17 different countries. Germany, Canada, and Israel were the countries with the largest number of movants.

- The lead plaintiff movants were represented by 23 different law firms. The law firm that represented international institutional investors most often – Milberg Weiss, followed by Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, Bernstein Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, and Grant & Eisenhofer.

We hope to update this research on an annual basis, so stay tuned...

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

Back To Top

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Victory in the Quixotic Quest

Earlier this month, we reported on our long and generally fruitless quest to alter the misconception floating around in academia that private institutions do not serve as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions.

An alert reader pointed out that the final published version of Prof. Stephen J. Choi and Robert B. Thompson's paper, Securities Litigation and Its Lawyers: Changes During the First Decade After PSLRA not only corrected the misconception, but credited this author both in their introductory thanks and in the soon to be famous "Footnote 98."

In related news, we can also report that after our initial blog post, SLW had a lengthy series of e-mail exchanges with Charlie Silver and Sam Dinkin regarding their draft paper, Incentivizing Institutional Investors to Serve as Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Fraud Class Actions. The authors indicated that they would also amend their draft at some point to reflect the updated information.

Two sets of academic authors down, one to go.

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

Back To Top

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

The SCAS 50 for 2006

For the fourth year, my company (ISS' Securities Class Action Services) has issued its "SCAS 50" report.

Based on data from the SCAS database, the SCAS 50 lists the top 50 plaintiffs' law firms ranked by the total dollar amount of final securities class action settlements occurring in 2006 in which the law firm served as lead or co-lead counsel.

The full report is available here.

2006's Top 10:

RANK	LAW FIRM	SETTLEMENT TOTAL	# OF SETTLEMENTS	AVERAGE
1	Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins	$7,307,050,000	30	$243,568,333
2	Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann	$2,634,765,298	9	$292,751,700
3	Heins Mills & Olson	$2,500,000,000	1	$2,500,000,000
4	Milberg Weiss & Bershad	$1,604,608,808	22	$72,936,764
5	Entwistle & Cappucci	$1,100,000,000	1	$1,100,000,000
6	Barrack, Rodos & Bacine	$960,000,000	1	$960,000,000
7	Kirby McInerney & Squire	$650,900,000	5	$130,180,000
8	Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis	$590,295,000	8	$73,865,625
9	Barrett & Weber	$410,000,000	1	$410,000,000
9	Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley	$410,000,000	1	$410,000,000

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

Back To Top

Friday, March 2, 2007

The Quixotic Quest Continues

It all started back in December 2005, when Prof. James D. Cox (Duke) and Randall S. Thomas (Vanderbilt) posited, in their latest article on the failure of institutional investors to file claim forms in securities class action settlements, Letting Billions Slip Through Your Fingers: Empirical Evidence and Legal Implications of the Failure of Financial Institutions to Participate in Securities Class Action Settlements, that they could:

find no recorded case where a bank, mutual fund, or insurance company has served as a lead plaintiff in a securities class action.

A few months later, I blogged on the issue, here, here, and here, and noted that there were a number of instances where private institutional investors had indeed served as lead plaintiffs in securities litigation.

Prof. Cox and Thomas then posted a draft of their latest paper, An Empirical Analysis Of Institutional Investors' Impact as Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Fraud Class Actions, where they repeated their earlier conclusion:

we find no recorded case where a bank, mutual fund or insurance company has served as a lead plaintiff in a securities class action.

Then, Prof. Stephen J. Choi (New York University School of Law) and Robert B. Thompson (Vanderbilt University School of Law) authored a paper, Securities Litigation and Its Lawyers: Changes During the First Decade After PSLRA that reiterated the myth, stating:

There has been a substantial increase in participation of public pension firms, a group that includes well-known public employees' funds such as Calpers, NYCERS and funds related to various unions. At the same time, there has not been any substantial involvement by private investors, such as mutual funds, banks, and insurance companies.

Recently, Prof. Charlie Silver (University of Texas School of Law) and an economist, Sam Dinkin, published a draft paper, Incentivizing Institutional Investors to Serve as Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Fraud Class Actions, that cites to the same Cox / Thomas myth, as part of the underlying premise for the need to incentivize private institutional investors. They do go on to try and make some sense of the conflicting information out in the marketplace now with respect to private institutional investor involvement in securities class actions. The paper has some thought provoking proposals, and I fear that the repetition of the myth in the very first paragraph may take something away from the discussion that I hope their paper stimulates. Indeed, at a later date, we'll dive into the underlying proposals.

OK, listen up Academia. For the last time, private institutional investors (mutual funds, banks, and insurance companies) do seek to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Here are a few examples.

Mutual Funds:

In the Lucent Technologies (NYSE: ALU) securities class action, two mutual funds, The Parnassus Fund and the Parnassus Income Trust/Equity Income Fund were appointed as co-lead plaintiffs. The Lucent securities litigation is the ninth largest securities class action settlement of all time according to data from my team at ISS' Securities Class Action Services.

Insurance Companies:

In the Laidlaw (NYSE: LI) bondholder class action, four insurance companies, John Hancock Life Insurance Co, New York Life, Insurance Co, American General Annuity Insurance Company, and Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., were appointed as co-lead plaintiffs.

Banks:

In the Honeywell International (NYSE: HON), securities class action, which settled in 2004 for $100 million, Jefferson State Bank, was appointed as co-lead plaintiff.

You've been warned...

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

Back To Top

Friday, June 23, 2006

Unringing the Bell

"Motion?  What motion?  Oh, that thing?  Wait, did we file that?  With the court?  Oh, geez, our bad.  Sorry about that.  Never mind."

So maybe plaintiffs' law firms Cohen Milstein and Berger & Montague can get back on the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Holiday card list after all after reportedly (per the WSJ Law Blog, as usual) withdrawing their motion in the GMH Communities Trust securities litigation just days after filing it.  As discussed here, the motion had stated that Lerach's client's  "choice of Lerach Coughlin as Proposed Lead Counsel raises serious questions and may be indicative of the fact that the pension fund is unfit to serve as Lead Plaintiff in this case."  The motion added that "Lerach's practices as class counsel are under intense scrutiny and could possibly result in additional indictments."

It certainly is curious why this bell was rung and then "unrung."  Is it the motions-practice equivalent of one of those objectionable questions trial lawyers ask for effect and then promptly "withdraw?"  Or is it just a mulligan?

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

Back To Top

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

No Holds Barred in the GMH Communities Trust Case: Going After Lerach

I think it is safe to say that plaintiffs' law firms Cohen Milstein and Berger & Montague are permanently off the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Holiday card list after dropping the "I"-bomb ("Indictment") on the Lerach firm in a motion filed in the GMH Communities Trust securities litigation.  According to this motion filed two days ago by Cohen Milstein and Berger & Montague, Steamfitters Local 449 should not be named lead plaintiff in the GMH case because of its choice of proposed lead counsel--Lerach Coughlin. 

Noting partner Bill Lerach's reported involvement in some of the overt acts listed in the criminal indictment of law firm Milberg Weiss, the motion states that the Steamfitters' "choice of Lerach Coughlin as Proposed Lead Counsel raises serious questions and may be indicative of the fact that the pension fund is unfit to serve as Lead Plaintiff in this case."  The motion adds that "Lerach's practices as class counsel are under intense scrutiny and could possibly result in additional indictments."

Can't wait to see the Steamfitters'/Lerach Coughlin opposition to this motion--I expect it to be combustible to the point that it may burst into flames upon contact.

UPDATE: The WSJ Law Blog reports that Lerach Coughlin has already issued the following statement to the Law Blog:

“This is a transparent, pathetic and ultimately meaningless effort by law firms with a serious case of sour grapes that seem more interested in themselves than what is in the best interest of the shareholders, which is having the most effective securities law firm in country — when it comes to recovering the largest settlements for shareholders and who has not been accused by anybody of doing anything wrong — litigate the case.”

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

Back To Top

Thursday, May 11, 2006

The SCAS 50 for 2005

For the third year, my company (ISS' Securities Class Action Services) has issued its "SCAS 50" report.  Based on data from the SCAS database, the SCAS 50 lists the top 50 plaintiffs' law firms ranked by the total dollar amount of final securities class action settlements occurring in 2005 in which the law firm served as lead or co-lead counsel.  The full report is available here.

2005's Top 10:

RANK	LAW FIRM	SETTLEMENT TOTAL	# OF SETTLEMENTS	AVERAGE
1	Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann	$3,745,600,714	9	$416,177,857
2	Barrack, Rodos & Bacine	$3,671,825,714	5	$734,365,143
3	Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins	$1,797,130,893	47	$38,236,828
4	Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP	$637,460,000	34	$18,748,824
5	Grant & Eisenhofer	$322,372,420	6	$53,728,737
6	Schiffrin & Barroway	$265,995,000	14	$18,999,643
7	Berger & Montague, P.C.	$229,300,000	10	$22,930,000
8	Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross	$226,250,000	3	$75,416,667
9	Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP	$161,900,000	7	$23,128,571
10	Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP	$152,850,000	9	$16,983,333

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1) | Print Article

Back To Top