Main

Daily Posts

May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

About SLW

Events

Subscribe

Email Alerts

Subscribe and receive email alerts when new articles are published!

Enter Your Email Address

U.S. Code

Code of Federal Regulations

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

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

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

SCAS Top 100 Settlements--Q2 2005 Update

Yesterday, SCAS released to clients the current version of its Top 100 Securities Class Action Settlements list, updated through the end of the second quarter of 2005.  A portion of that report showing settlements in the Top 100 that exceeded $100 million can be viewed here.   To be eligible for the Top 100 list, a case must have been filed after January 1, 1996 and the settlement must have been approved by the court (which excludes, for now, recently-anounced and yet-to-be-approved settlements like those in the Enron case).

The report also breaks down the Top 100 settlements by categories such as institutional lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and claims administrator.  With respect to lead counsel, the leaders were

  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman (lead or co-lead counsel in 35 of the Top 100 cases--including 26 cases in which Milberg Weiss Bershad and Lerach was lead counsel).
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann (lead or co-lead counsel in 13 of the Top 100)
  3. Berger & Montague (lead or co-lead counsel in 10 of the Top 100)
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (lead or co-lead counsel in 9 of the Top 100).

Monday, May 2, 2005

Presenting the SCAS 50 for 2004

The following article appeared in the May 2005 SCAS Alert:

Presenting the SCAS 50 for 2004
By Bruce T. Carton, Vice President, ISS' Securities Class Action Services

This month's Securities Class Action Services Alert includes ISS' annual "SCAS 50" report. The SCAS 50 for 2004 lists the top 50 plaintiffs' law firms ranked by the total dollar amount of final securities class-action settlements occurring in 2004 in which the law firm served as lead or co-lead counsel.

Topping our list for 2004 in more ways than one was Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, which served as lead or co-lead counsel in final settlements totaling $3.466 billion. Notably, Bernstein Litowitz had a hand in well over one half of the record $5.98 billion in securities class-action settlement dollars obtained in 2004. Rounding out the Top 5 in our SCAS 50 were Barrack, Rodos & Bacine ($2.888 billion), Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman ($900 million), Chitwood & Harley ($583 million), and Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo ($578 million).

Bernstein Litowitz also led the way in terms of average settlement amount for firms that served as lead or co-lead counsel in at least five settlements in 2004. Its average settlement of over $288 million was quadruple that of Chitwood & Harley, the second- ranked firm in this category with an average settlement amount of over $72 million.

With respect to the total number of final settlements, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman led with 43 settlements. This was more than double the number of settlements obtained by the next firm in this category-- Schiffrin & Barroway, which was lead or co-lead counsel in 21 settlements. Other law firms with at least 10 settlements in 2004 included Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (14), Berger & Montague (13), Bernstein Litowitz (12), Stull, Stull & Brody (11), and Berman DeValerio (10).

A printable copy of the SCAS 50, including details on our methodology, is available in PDF format here.

For an interactive version of the SCAS 50 that can be sorted by its various columns, please click here.

The SCAS 50 is published on an annual basis, and we welcome your feedback.

Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Hold the Presses: Class Action Notices in Plain English

The following article appeared in the March 2004 edition of ISS's SCAS Alert:

Hold the Presses: Class Action Notices in Plain English
By Bruce Carton, Executive Director

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—the rules governing litigation practice in federal courts—are usually of little interest to non-lawyers. A recent amendment to these rules that went into effect on Dec. 1, 2003, however, is already providing a significant benefit to investors who are eligible to participate in securities class action settlements.

For decades, settlement notices advising class members of the terms of a settlement and of their options have been written in typical legalese—dense, lengthy paragraphs filled with legal jargon and complex procedural instructions. As of Dec. 1, 2003, however, Federal Rule 23(c)(2) requires, for the first time, that class settlement notices “must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood language” certain information about the nature and terms of a class action and how it might affect potential class members’ rights. A review of recent settlement notices in the SCAS database indicates that, for the most part, attorneys are changing their notices to comply with the new rule. The vast majority of settlement notices issued in securities settlements since Dec. 1, 2003, are written in clear, simple language not previously seen in such documents.

The involvement of the Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research and education agency of the federal judicial system, has made the task of crafting plain language settlement notices, which customarily falls to plaintiffs’ lawyers, much easier. At the request of the U.S. judicial branch's Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the FJC developed form notices for use in securities class action settlements after years of “psycholinguistic” research, focus groups, and testing of nonlawyers’ comprehension of different notices. The FJC’s research ultimately showed that people who read the FJC’s form plain language notice exhibited significantly higher comprehension than those who received even the best examples of non-“plain language” notices.

“Psycholinguistics” aside, even a cursory comparison of the old and new breeds of settlement notices demonstrates that the latter are far simpler and easier to read. For example, the February 13, 2004, settlement notice issued in In re: PSS World Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation, which is based heavily on the final FJC model notice, begins with the bolded, double-spaced announcement that

“If you bought PSS World Medical, Inc. Common Stock during the period from October 26, 1999 through October 3, 2000, you could get a payment from a class action settlement.”

A simple chart also appears on the first page summarizing the reader’s rights and options:

paint_chart.gif

To see the sharp contrast with past practices, compare this notice with the opening salvo from the In re: Cutter and Buck Securities Litigation settlement notice issued in September 2003:

TO: ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CUTTER & BUCK, INC. ("CBUK") COMMON STOCK OR OPTIONS BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2000 AND AUGUST 12, 2002, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS" AS MORE PARTICULARLY DEFINED BELOW):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THIS FUND, YOU MUST SUBMIT A VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 12, 2004.

This Notice has been sent to you pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Court"). The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the settlement ("Settlement") of a class action (the "Class Action") pursuant to an agreement (the "Stipulation") to resolve the claims in the Class Action and a related derivative action (the "Derivative Action") (collectively, the "Actions"), and of the hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. This Notice describes the rights you may have in connection with the Settlement and what steps you may take in relation to the Settlement and the Class Action.

Following the FJC model, the rest of the PSS World Medical notice is organized not by subtitles written in legalese, but rather in a basic “Q&A” format. Thus, a subsection that once might typically have been titled “Statement Respecting the Fees and Expenses Application” now states, “How will the lawyers be paid?” Other basic questions covered include:

o “Why did I get this notice package?”
o “Why is there a settlement?”
o “How much will my payment be?”
o “How can I get a payment?”
o “When would I get my payment?”
o “How do I tell the Court that I don’t like the settlement?” and
o “What happens if I do nothing at all?”

Similarly, the recently issued settlement notice in In re: Medi-Hut Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, which is substantially based on an earlier draft of the FJC model, follows the Q&A format and also provides a simple chart summarizing the readers’ options. Presumably addressing a past source of investor confusion, this notice curiously begins by stating:

“This is not a lawsuit against you. You are not being sued. This is a notice of proposed class action settlement. In the following notice, you are being asked to decide whether you would like to participate in this class action.”

Whether the Medi-Hut notice goes overboard by providing the reader with definitions for things like formatting bullet points (defined as “black dots”) is debatable. Overall, however, the plain language notices used in Medi-Hut, PSS World Medical and many other recent settlement notices are far more comprehensible and less daunting than their predecessors. And that’s something that investors should appreciate.

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

January 2004 SCAS Alert Available

The January 2004 edition of the Securities Class Action Services Alert is now available here.

Friday, December 12, 2003

December 2003 SCAS Alert Available


The December 2003 edition of the Securities Class Action Services Alert is now available here.

Monday, September 1, 2003

September 2003 SCAS Alert Available

The September 2003 edition of the Securities Class Action Services Alert is available here.

   
 
About RiskMetrics Group | Disclaimer

Copyright © 2007 RiskMetrics Group


Powered by Movable Type 3.36