(Reuters) – Pro tip for class action objectors hoping to extract six-figure payoffs in exchange for dropping protests to big-ticket settlements: Make sure you are actually a member of the class whose settlement you are trying to hold up.
(Reuters) – The insurance conglomerate MetLife doesn’t agree on much with the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The FSOC, in MetLife’s view, made a grievous mistake when it dubbed the company (in the infelicitous lingo of financial reform) a “nonbank systemically important financial institution” that needs extra oversight from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, lest its financial distress bring down the entire U.S. economy.
(Reuters) – A newly filed class action claims that FanDuel and DraftKings could not have become billion-dollar businesses had it not been for the help of the credit card industry, which enabled players to enter online fantasy sports contests. The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court on behalf of FanDuel and DraftKings players nationwide, accuses, Visa, MasterCard, American Express and other defendants of participating in a racketeering scheme to facilitate illegal gambling operations.
(Reuters) – To celebrate the 10th anniversary of Chief Justice John Roberts’ inauguration, the Akron Law Review has published a collection of papers on the impact of the Roberts Court’s decisions on class actions. The articles, a mix of studies by law professors and class action practitioners, were all written before the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this fall in a trio of cases posing some fundamental questions about class actions, such as whether Congress can legislate constitutional standing and whether classes can be certified if they contain members who have not been injured.
(Reuters) – I wouldn’t ordinarily cover Utah state-court shareholder litigation over a $115 million deal but I’m worried about the implications of a forum selection dispute fomented by FX Energy, an oil and gas exploration company that announced its sale to Orlen Upstream last month.
(Reuters) – Class action lawyers can’t stay in business unless they earn contingency fees from settling cases. That’s just a plain economic truth. And based on new data compiled by the indefatigable folks at The Chancery Daily, it has not taken long at all for shareholder lawyers to respond like the rational economic actors they are to the new reality of M&A litigation in Delaware.
(Reuters) – Back in April 2014, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz put out a client alert warning of a scary new template for hostile bids: corporate raiders teaming up with activist investors for their mutual benefit and the corresponding doom of target companies. The alert was inspired, of course, by the pharmaceutical company Valeant’s partnership with Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square in a bid for Allergan.
Remember how excited the business lobby was in 2014 when the U.S. Supreme Court took a case that might have knocked out the foundation of most securities fraud class actions? The justices granted certiorari in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund to reconsider the presumption that, under fraud-on-the-market theory, investors relied on corporate misrepresentations. But in the end, the court left the presumption more or less intact, disappointing Halliburton amici who had hoped for fundamental change in the law governing securities class actions.
In a 135-page split opinion Monday night, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction barring the Obama administration from implementing a policy of deferring deportation actions against more than 4 million undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the U.S. The appellate majority, Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod, ruled 26 states were likely to prevail in their claims that the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it instituted a new immigration policy by issuing a memo instead of launching the formal rulemaking process. The Justice Department said Tuesday it intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit’s decision.
(Reuters) – Scathing commentary about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has tended to focus on the court’s refusal to restrict corporate political spending. As you know, the justices struck down campaign finance reforms as an unconstitutional violation of corporations’ free speech rights, triggering an avalanche of predictions that corporate donors would wield outsized political influence. The other free speech beneficiaries of Citizens United – labor unions also subject to the invalidated campaign finance restrictions – haven’t been the subject of nearly as much fear and loathing.