Alison Frankel

Is long-running pollution ‘an event’? 3rd Circuit says yes in CAFA case

Alison Frankel
May 22, 2013 18:58 UTC

The doctrine of strict textualism – in which judicial decisions are compelled solely by statutory language – has always reminded me of what my father, an internist, used to say about overeager surgeons: When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. And when your only judicial philosophy is textualism, every case is a matter of words. Simple enough, right? Wrong. Consider a ruling Friday by a three-judge panel at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that turned on the definition of “an event or occurrence.”

The issue for the 3rd Circuit was removal to federal court of a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act. As you probably recall, Congress passed CAFA in 2005 with the express intention of steering most class actions out of state court and into the federal system. CAFA also mandated that mass actions involving parallel claims by 100 or more individual plaintiffs be litigated in federal court, with a couple of exceptions. One of the exceptions holds that strictly local controversies may remain in state court, even if more than 100 plaintiffs have sued. To meet CAFA’s criteria for that exception, cases must assert claims that all “arise from an event or occurrence in the state in which the action was filed, and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that state or in states contiguous to that state.”

There’s not much ambiguity in defining state borders, but what about in delineating the time frame of an event? Was, say, the Civil War a single event or a collection of battles and political actions that each represent a unique event? In the case before the 3rd Circuit, more than 400 current and former residents of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands claimed to have been injured by St. Croix Renaissance Group’s supposed failure to clean up toxic waste piles at a former alumina refinery SCRG purchased in 2002. St. Croix, which is in the business of redeveloping contaminated properties, never operated the refinery and has spent years in cleanup-cost litigation with a former owner of the site and others. But the plaintiffs said in filings in territorial court (the Virgin Islands equivalent of state court) that asbestos and other hazardous chemicals from the abandoned refinery were meanwhile swirling around St. Croix and damaging their health.

SCRG removed their suits to federal court as a mass action under CAFA. The plaintiffs moved for remand to the territorial court under the local controversy exception; SCRG’s lawyer, Carl Hartmann countered that the plaintiffs’ suits didn’t involve “an event or occurrence.” In December, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle of Philadelphia sided with the plaintiffs, finding that 10 years of supposedly continuous contamination can be construed as “an event” for CAFA jurisdictional purposes. “We think that an event, as used in CAFA, encompasses a continuing tort which results in a regular or continuous release of toxic or hazardous chemicals, as allegedly is occurring here, and where there is no superseding occurrence or significant interruption that breaks the chain of causation,” Bartle wrote. “A very narrow interpretation of the word ‘event’ as advocated by SCRG would undermine the intent of Congress to allow the state or territorial courts to adjudicate claims involving truly localized environmental torts with localized injuries.”

SCRG asked the 3rd Circuit for an expedited review, which was granted. In its appellate brief, the company argued (among other things) that Bartle’s definition of an event was at odds with that of the 9th Circuit inNevada v. Bank of America, which is the only federal appellate ruling on this question. In a brief in response, the plaintiffs’ appellate counsel at Public Justice said several district courts have held that ongoing contamination is a single event, and that the legislative history of CAFA shows that Congress included the local controversy exception specifically to permit environmental tort claims to be litigated in state court.

Shuttered FrontPoint hedge funds sue Libor banks for $250 mln fraud

Alison Frankel
May 21, 2013 21:45 UTC

Last month, right after U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Manhattan dismissed class action antitrust and racketeering claims against the global banks that supposedly colluded to manipulate the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), Daniel Brockett of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan politely said, “I told you so.” Brockett had been pushing an alternate theory of liability against the Libor banks, focused on securities and common-law fraud, not on antitrust violations. And even in the Libor litigation wreckage that resulted from Buchwald’s ruling, he said, fraud claims like those filed in March by Freddie Mac’s conservator against a dozen Libor banks were still viable. The only catch was that plaintiffs would have to be able to show that they relied on misrepresentations by panel banks, so cases would probably have to be brought by individual investors with big enough losses in Libor-pegged financial instruments to justify the cost of solo litigation. Nevertheless, Brockett told me he believed those investors were out there.

On Tuesday, one of them surfaced. Brockett filed a 106-page complaint in New York State Supreme Court for Salix Capital, which owns claims belonging to several shuttered hedge funds that once operated under the FrontPoint umbrella. Salix alleges that in 2007 and 2008, the FrontPoint funds engaged in Libor-pegged interest rate swaps with Libor panel banks as part of complex, multi-security deals known as corporate bond basis packages. The swaps were supposed to be a hedge against a global banking crisis, since Libor should have increased as it became more expensive for banks to borrow from one another. Instead, the complaint alleges, the panel banks artificially suppressed Libor, undermining the trading strategy of the FrontPoint funds.

The funds “relied on the integrity of how Libor was set and the truthfulness of defendants’ representations about how Libor was set in entering into these transactions,” the complaint said. “By suppressing Libor, defendants artificially lowered the amount they were contractually obligated to pay to the funds under the interest rate swaps, while still demanding that the funds make the contracted-for (comparatively high) fixed-rate payments. In marketing the basis packages, defendants misrepresented Libor and omitted to disclose their manipulation of Libor.”

Chutzpah redefined? Rating agencies want FHFA to share discovery costs

Alison Frankel
May 20, 2013 18:01 UTC

One of the most salient bits of information in the Justice Department’s civil complaint against Standard & Poor’s and its parent, McGraw-Hill - aside from the revelation that one S&P analyst devised a 2007 dance video riffing on the Talking Heads song “Burning Down the House” – is the amount S&P supposedly earned for rating mortgage-backed securities as banks rushed to squeeze every last dollar from the securitization boom. According to the government, the agency’s Global Asset-Backed Securities Unit was assessing MBS in such a hurry in 2006 and 2007 that S&P rating committees spent less than 15 minutes reviewing analyst evaluations. Yet the agency was rewarded munificently for its efforts. In 2006, S&P was supposedly paid $278 million in fees by the banks whose MBS deals it rated. In 2007 it was paid $243 million for rating MBS.

I’m resurrecting Justice’s report on those fees because last week, S&P’s lawyers at Cahill Gordon & Reindel informed U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of Manhattan that it should not have to bear the entire $180,000 cost of producing in electronic form about 400 MBS files to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has served third-party subpoenas on S&P, Moody’s and Fitch in 15 securities suits against MBS issuers and underwriters. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke filed a similar letter to Cote on behalf of Moody’s, which claims vendor costs of $46,000 to produce files on 470 MBS deals it rated. Fitch’s lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison  protested over the agency’s $50,000 in vendor costs on 150 securitizations.

FHFA, let’s remember, is basically bringing its MBS claims on behalf of taxpayers, since it’s the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage funders that were the biggest MBS investors in the securitization market. So to reduce the dispute over who should bear the cost of the rating agencies’ compliance with FHFA’s subpoenas to its most basic terms, companies that earned hundreds of millions of dollars by conferring unwarranted blessings on suspect deals are balking at thousands of dollars in costs to help taxpayers determine if they were duped.

Wal-Mart’s whistle-blower problem: Public revelations trump privilege

Alison Frankel
May 17, 2013 20:31 UTC

Attorney-client privilege confers powerful protection over confidential corporate documents. But according to arulingThursday by Chancellor Leo Strine of Delaware Chancery Court, once documents have become public – even if by dubious means – they can be used in litigation.

In May of 2012, shareholder lawyer Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer opened a thick packet he’d received in the mail. On behalf of clients, Grant had recently sent a demand for information to Wal-Mart, following up on The New York Times’ stunning revelations about the company’s attempt to shut down an internal investigation of alleged bribery of Mexican officials. Wal-Mart lawyers had said they would respond to Grant’s books-and-records demand, and Grant told me in an interview that he at first thought the envelope contained that response. Grant quickly realized that the mailing was not, in fact, official corporate correspondence: He had been sent a 190-page trove of confidential Wal-Mart documents.

“Immediately our reaction was, ‘What are our obligations?’ We did research, we did everything we needed to do,” Grant said. After determining that the return address on the packet was a fake, Grant notified Wal-Mart that he’d received the documents on June 1, 2012.

‘Iqbal Effect’ on housing, employment cases skews Republican: new study

Alison Frankel
May 16, 2013 22:37 UTC

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined the pleading standard for antitrust suits in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. In 2009, it extended the new standard to all civil cases in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Since then, according to Westlaw,Twombly has been cited as a reference 191,394 times and Iqbal, 123,714. A lot of those citations in judicial opinions are boilerplate, but that very fact tells you how important Twombly and Iqbal have become. Judges now reflexively apply the Iqbal standard – which directs them to use their judicial experience and common sense to decide whether a plaintiff’s allegations are plausible, not merely conceivable – in deciding whether to dismiss complaints.

The big question in the post-Iqbal era has always been whether the discretion the Supreme Court gave to trial judges would affect not just dismissal rates but also the kinds of cases that are dismissed. Civil rights advocates, in particular, worried that judges who were politically inclined toward skepticism about their claims would use Iqbal to justify dismissing their suits. The overall impact of the new pleading standard continues to be debated in legal academia, but a soon-to-be-published study in the Akron Law Review suggests that Iqbal’s impact on civil rights cases has, in fact, skewed politically.

The study, “The Politics of Procedure: An Empirical Analysisof Motion Practice in Civil Rights Litigation Under the New Plausibility Standard,” looked at 548 employment and housing discrimination suits filed between 2004 (before Twombly) and 2010 (after Iqbal) – all such cases in which there was a reported dismissal decision. Albany Law School professor Raymond Brescia, one of the co-authors, had previously analyzed Iqbal’s impact on dismissal rates in those 548 cases, reaching the somewhat surprising conclusion that dismissals with prejudice increased at only a slight rate after Iqbal. That previous paper, by its own admission, called for refined analysis, so Brescia and student Edward Ohanian re-examined dismissal rates, taking into account such factors as the judge’s race, gender and, as a proxy for political views, appointment by Democratic or Republican presidents.

N.Y. judges split on time bar for billion-dollar MBS put-back claims

Alison Frankel
May 15, 2013 20:50 UTC

It is no exaggeration to say that billions of dollars hang on the question of whether New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich or her colleague Justice Peter Sherwood is correct about how long mortgage-backed securities trustees have to assert claims that MBS sponsors breached representations and warranties. There’s no disagreement that under New York law, which applies to most MBS deals, the statute of limitations for breach of contract suits is six years. But in dueling opinions issued Tuesday, Kornreich and Sherwood came to different conclusions about when the statute begins to run. Sherwood sided with the securitizer Nomura and its lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, ruling that the clock starts ticking on the securitization’s closing date. Kornreich explicitly rejected that theory in a trustee case filed by Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman against DB Structured Products, finding instead that DB’s refusal to repurchase supposedly defective underlying loans triggered the statute.

The statute of limitations for MBS trustee breach of contract suits, otherwise known as put-back claims, is an issue of first impression in New York state court, and given that these two judges have now reached opposite conclusions about the same federal-court precedent (Structured Mortgage Trust v. Daiwa Finance and Lehman Brothers v. Evergreen), we’ll have to wait to see what the state appeals court thinks. The question for the appeals court is stark: Is an MBS pooling and servicing agreement breached when underlying loans fall short of promises the sponsor makes on the day the deal is signed or does the breach occur only when the sponsor fails to meet a continuing obligation to repurchase deficient loans?

To get a sense of the magnitude of that question, consider Sherwood’s footnote that 14 MBS cases in his court alone will be affected by his interpretation of the statute of limitations. Joseph Frank of Orrick told me that four of those cases are against Nomura, asserting aggregate damages of $500 million. And that’s just a few cases before one judge. The statute issue is so momentous that the Association for Mortgage Investors, a trade group, submitted an amicus brief in the Nomura case Sherwood decided, asserting that MBS sponsors have a continuing obligation to repurchase defective mortgages.

SAC’s Steinberg claims judge-shopping but loses bid for reassignment

Alison Frankel
May 15, 2013 05:44 UTC

For defense lawyers, it’s always a calculated risk to intimate that the judge presiding over your client’s case may not be entirely impartial. Whether you make that suggestion in a recusal motion or, in very extreme circumstances, in a mandamus petition, you’re implicitly acknowledging that your client has little or nothing to lose by challenging the trial court’s judgment (and inevitably irritating the judge).

Michael Steinberg of SAC Capital is facing a Nov. 18 trial on federal fraud and conspiracy charges stemming from his supposed insider trading in Dell and Nvidia shares. That trial will take place before U.S. District JudgeRichard Sullivan of Manhattan, despite the best efforts of Steinberg’s lawyers at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel.

Lead defense counsel Barry Berke of Kramer Levin hedged the risk of offending Sullivan by framing his letter request for reassignment to a new judge as an accusation of prosecutorial judge-shopping. In a nine-page letter to Sullivan and Chief Judge Loretta Preska, Berke asserted that the government improperly brought its case against Steinberg as a superseding indictment even though the previously indicted insider trading defendants in the case had already pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. Prosecutors’ motive, according to the letter, was to proceed before Sullivan, who has sided with the government’s argument that it need not prove a tippee was aware the tipper stood to benefit from passing inside information. Two other judges in the Southern District of New York have instructed juries otherwise on this issue, which Kramer Levin said is central to the Steinberg case because the hedge fund manager “is at least four steps removed from the alleged tippers in the two stocks specifically charged in the indictment.”

N.Y. AG rebuffed in clash with private lawyers with parallel claims

Alison Frankel
May 13, 2013 22:42 UTC

On Monday, former New York governors Mario Cuomo and George Pataki wrote an unusual joint opinion piecein The Wall Street Journal, calling on New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to drop threats that he will continue to seek injunctive relief against former AIG chief Hank Greenberg, even though the AG has already had to abandon damages claims because Greenberg reached a private settlement with investors in a securities class action. As my Reuters colleague Karen Freifeld explained in a really smart analysis last Friday, Schneiderman is constrained by a 2008 ruling that limits the AG’s right to recovery in the name of investors who have already settled a federal-court class action. Freifeld said that the same holding, Spitzer v. Applied Card, may ultimately force the AG to drop claims for money damages against Bank of America in connection with its merger with Merrill Lynch and against Ernst & Young for its audit of Lehman Brothers, even though both suits were brought under New York’s powerful Martin Act, which permits the state to bring securities claims on behalf of supposedly defrauded investors.

I’ve written a lot about the tension between class action lawyers and state regulators with parallel claims. The battle to recover damages on behalf of misled investors (and the right to claim credit for the recovery) is part of that interplay: In New York, whoever makes a deal first wins.

A 44-page decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of Manhattan provides a vivid illustration of the burgeoning competition between the New York AG and securities class action lawyers. McMahon ruled that plaintiffs’ lawyers are entitled to about 18 percent of a $220 million settlement on behalf of investors in the Bernard Madoff feeder fund Ivy Asset Management (and related defendants). As Daniel Fisher of Forbes reported Friday, she ordered a 25 percent haircut on the hours and rates that five plaintiffs’ firms billed for reviewing documents previously produced to regulators, finding that the firms (whom she otherwise praised to the skies) should not have jacked up billing rates for the contract lawyers who conducted the review.

Patent trolls and multidistrict litigation: It’s complicated

Alison Frankel
May 10, 2013 21:31 UTC

One of the key anti-troll elements of the America Invents Act of 2011 was the patent reform law’s restrictions on joinder. After September 2011, patent owners could not file complaints that named multiple, otherwise unrelated defendants who happened to make use of the same IP. The idea was to make it more expensive for plaintiffs to bring and litigate patent suits, to prevent forum shopping and to limit trolls’ leverage. Conventional wisdom was that the new law’s joinder restrictions were going to lead to an uptick in requests for the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate cases for pretrial proceedings. If plaintiffs could persuade the JPMDL to consolidate cases for pretrial proceedings – especially if they could direct consolidated litigation to sympathetic judges – they could take some of the sting out of joinder restrictions.

As usual, reality is more complicated. Prompted by a squib about a patent MDL at the Gibbons blog IP Law Alert, I went to the JPMDL’s site to see if, in fact, plaintiffs have flocked to the panel since patent reform. Here’s what I found. There are 19 active MDLs categorized as patent matters. Three of them are Hatch-Waxman litigation between brand and generic drugmakers, so I eliminated them from additional consideration. Of the remaining 16 consolidated proceedings, five preceded the effective date of the patent reform law. So in the 15 months since AIA, the MDL panel has consolidated 11 patent matters. That seems to be a higher rate for consolidating patent litigation than we saw before patent reform, but the JPMDL still considers far more product liability, consumer and antitrust matters than patent litigation.

And interestingly, it was defendants who moved for pretrial consolidation in seven of the 11 patent MDLs. Plaintiffs opposed the consolidation motions in all of those cases. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, brought four of the transfer motions, and defendants opposed all of them. In two of the four plaintiffs’ MDL attempts, patent holders requested that their cases be consolidated in the Eastern District of Texas, widely reckoned to be a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction (otherwise known as a troll haven). The JPMDL agreed to consolidate both litigations but sent the matters to judges in other districts. The one patent MDL transferred to a judge in the Eastern District of Texas, In re Parallel Networks, was consolidated on a motion by defendants that was opposed by the plaintiff.

Anonymous online reviews may not be so anonymous

Alison Frankel
May 9, 2013 22:30 UTC

On Wednesday, the Public Citizen Litigation Group filed an appeal for the online review site Yelp, asking the Virginia Court of Appeals to review a trial-court order compelling Yelp to reveal the identity of seven anonymous reviewers who complained about a Washington carpet-cleaning service that subsequently sued them for libel and defamation. Yelp and Public Citizen contend that Alexandria City Circuit Court Judge James Clark got it wrong when he ruled that despite First Amendment protection for anonymous online critics, a Virginia statute requires the disclosure of their names when their identity is central to claims against them.

That’s a pretty scary holding if you live in Virginia and are in the habit of expressing yourself anonymously on the Internet. I should note that there are restrictions on how far the ruling goes. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning’s libel suit asserts that the seven particular John Does named as defendants were actually competitors smearing Hadeed, not customers posting genuine reviews. Judge Clark agreed that because Hadeed claimed the seven reviewers falsely represented themselves, it met the standard set out in the state law governing disclosure of their identity.

The problem, at least according to Public Citizen, is that the standard in Virginia isn’t clearly defined by that law. Appeals courts in the state have not previously considered this question, but Public Citizen argues in the brief filed Wednesday that other state appellate courts have, and they’ve all reached conclusions contrary to Judge Clark’s. “Every other appellate court has held, whether under the First Amendment or under state procedures, that anonymous defendants are entitled to demand that the plaintiff make a factual showing, not just that the anonymous defendant has made critical statements, but also that the statements are actionable and that there is an evidentiary basis for the prima facie elements of the claim,” the brief said. Yelp’s lead counsel, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, told me the Virginia trial judge flat out erred in his interpretation of both the Virginia statute – which Levy says is merely procedural and does not set out a standard for disclosing a critic’s identity – and prevailing precedent.