Friday, December 24, 2010

Private Securities Litigation: Important Deterrent or Wasteful Churn?

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: grundfest@stanford.edu, Cox@law.duke.edu, klacroix@oakbridgeins.com
Sent: 12/24/2010 4:30:08 A.M. Central Standard Time

Subj: Private Securities Litigation: Important Deterrent or Wasteful Churn?

Dear Professors Grundfest and Cox, Mr. LaCroix, and Mr. Coffey (address for Mr. Coffey not yet found),

I have read with interest Mr. LaCroix's above referenced post in his blog. You may glean the extent of my interest from my own blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers .

I would like to offer some comments.

First, some rhetorical and/or loaded questions: Who and what are the drivers and determinants of the state of the law? Is it plaintiffs' lawyers and their lobbying and other influence with lawmakers, judges and others? Is it judges who have done an adequate policy evaluation of their judicial actions and decisions, insofar as they have discretion regarding the same? Is it academics who have debated the way the law should be and who make recommendations about the same that are accepted by lawmakers and judges? Is it critics, such as The Wall Street Journal?

Also, insofar as plaintiffs' lawyers are the drivers and determinants. to what extent do they exert their influence to achieve a state of the law that benefits themselves to the detriment of the societal interest in how the law operates? How demanding should academics and citizens be of their lawmakers and judges that those persons exert great skepticism about any input the plaintiffs' lawyers have regarding how the law should be and give the plaintiffs' lawyers no benefit of the doubt, including, for example, not finding it an adequate justification that there is "some deterrent effect" from private securities litigation, or that a "private/public partnership" has performed better than "public" alone when there is a choice to beef up with more funding for the "public" effort?

I took particular note of Mr. LaCroix's statement that "there are a large number of sophisticated, well-informed and profit motivated institutional investors that continue to actively participate in securities litigation, some serving frequently as lead plaintiffs." The reason for my interest is that I was once notified of a class action that caused me to send scores of emails to governmental retirement plans and members of the National Institute of Pension Plan Administrators, asking why they weren't "screaming bloody murder." You may read the text of those emails here http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-arent-government-retirement-systems.html and here http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-arent-retirement-plan-trustees.html . I did not get a single response.

I did not think, at the time, about "pay to play" type stuff going on in securities class action litigation that could keep parties from screaming bloody murder. Trust The Wall Street Journal to enlighten me in February with this item Trial Lawyers Contribute, Shareholder Suits Follow .

On the question of whether individual contibution is needed in order to achieve a better deterrent effect, I have taken the tack of trying to introduce the subject to academics and other professionals in the business ethics field. I have done this mainly through an article I have written that you can find at this link: Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? I have made scant headway in interesting ethics professionals in the subject matter.

Thank you for reading this email.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

ECOA Government Affairs group

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: nwine@theecoa.org
Sent: 12/21/2010 7:37:10 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: If Government Affairs should ever get slow

Dear Ms. Wine,

If Government Affairs should ever get slow for you (or if you are just interested in a challenge), you might take a look at my article Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? and decide whether the contentions I make in the article warrant ECOA's Government Affairs to undertake an initiative to engage with Federal and state lawmakers and judges, and others, regarding the matter.

If you would like to discuss this subject with me, I would be very happy to talk with you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

WSJ on trial lawyers contributing to pension officials


  • The Wall Street Journal

Trial Lawyers Contribute, Shareholder Suits Follow

Norfolk County, Mass., has only a small pension fund, but it is a big player in court.

Two weeks ago, the fund joined with two others in a shareholder suit against drugstore chain CVS Caremark Corp., whose stock had fallen. It was the 12th time since 2006 the pension fund has gone to court after a stock it owned declined.Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann received campaign contributions from out-of-state plaintiffs' firms.

For 10 of the suits, including the latest, the pension fund hired a New York plaintiffs' law firm called Labaton Sucharow LLP. That firm, in turn, has taken a keen interest in the political fortunes of Norfolk County Treasurer Joseph A. Connolly, who heads the pension fund's board. Attorneys at the New York law firm and their relatives have made 68 separate donations, of the maximum $500 apiece, to Mr. Connolly's campaign war chest since late 2005, public records show.

Asked why its lawyers gave to a county treasurer in a state not its own, Labaton Sucharow said its "members and their families make perfectly legal political contributions to elected officials and candidates who support shareholder rights." Mr. Connolly didn't respond to requests for comment.

It is legal for lawyers, like anyone else, to give campaign money to politicians. But questions arise when the politicians are local officials with influence over the selection of legal counsel for shareholder lawsuits filed by public pension funds, a role that can be lucrative.

A Wall Street Journal analysis documented the extent of campaign giving by plaintiffs' law firms specializing in shareholder litigation. It found that 25 leading firms, their lawyers and family members contributed a total of more than $21 million in the past decade to state-level candidates and party funds, as well as to national-party groups that work to elect state officials. Less than 40% went to candidates within the law firms' home states.

Labaton Sucharow was among the donation leaders. The law firm, its lawyers and their family members made $612,000 in campaign contributions in 24 states outside its New York home base in the decade.

Some lawyers say widespread political giving by plaintiffs' law firms, especially outside their home states and near the time when counsel are chosen, is evidence of a corrosive pay-to-play culture in the securities-litigation industry.

[PAYPLAYcover]

"Plaintiffs' lawyers donate because they think it buys them access to people who make decisions over how pension funds select counsel," says Fred Isquith, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a plaintiffs' firm in New York. Such giving "creates an appearance of complete impropriety," he says, and "should be outlawed."

The American Bar Association takes a similar position. The ABA, in giving guidance on ethics, says lawyers shouldn't accept a "government assignment" if they made a political contribution "for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for" such a job.

The Journal looked at donations in all 50 states from Jan. 1, 2000, through mid-2009, compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, as well as data from other state and federal sources. About 72% of contributions went to Democrats.

The Journal also examined the 25 largest recent class-action settlements in which public pension funds served as lead plaintiff, as calculated by NERA Economic Consulting. In 15 of the cases, one or more law firms representing a lead pension fund had donated to a politician in the fund's home state.

Most plaintiffs' lawyers say they give simply to support like-minded officials. "We make sizable contributions to candidates we believe support investor causes," said Stanley Bernstein, of the New York firm of Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

The firm and people associated with it made $1.2 million in campaign donations, mostly in 31 states other than New York. Plaintiffs' lawyers also say their contributions help offset cash from pro-business interests opposed to shareholder litigation.

Public officials who favor shareholder suits say these are a needed check on corporate misbehavior and have recovered billions of dollars of losses caused by past abuses at WorldCom, Tyco International and elsewhere. They deny any pay-to-play dynamic, and say lawyers are chosen on merit.

Public pension funds increasingly are the lead plaintiffs in shareholder suits, partly because a federal law encourages judges to pick big institutional investors for this role.

As a result, plaintiffs' law firms focus their marketing efforts on wooing public pension funds and the state and local officials who influence them. Some firms enlist the help of lobbyists and attend pension-fund conferences.

[PAYPLAYjump2]

Some lawyers say they aren't sure whether contributing helps them get government business, but are afraid not to. Some track how much rivals donate so they don't fall too far behind.

"There are certain places where, to be in the game, you have to donate," said Steven Toll, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC in Washington. It has contributed only modestly—$62,000 to out-of-state candidates—and Mr. Toll says he is sure its low level of giving has cost the firm business. But "we want to be chosen on merit, not because we contributed money," he said.

Ohio politicians received the most donations from out-of-state plaintiffs' firms in the past decade—more than $1.65 million, by the Journal's analysis. Ohio pension funds have filed at least 21 shareholder suits since 2002, according to state officials.

Running for Ohio attorney general in 2006, Democratic candidate Marc Dann told plaintiffs' law firms he favored shareholder suits and would file more of them than his rival would, he says. He received at least $59,500 from out-of-state securities litigators.

He won, and in the next 16 months, his office filed at least four securities suits on behalf of state pension funds, mostly using law firms that had given to his campaign or to the state Democratic Party. "I have no doubt I received donations with the expectation of work," Mr. Dann said. But, he said, attorneys were chosen strictly on merit.

Legal Tenders

[payplPromo]

How donations and decisions converged in Rhode Island. Click to see full chart.

Ohio's legislature tried to crack down on perceived pay-to-play abuses with a 2007 law that prohibited giving a state contract to any firm that had donated more than $2,000 to a politician overseeing such a contract. A court later overturned the law because of defects in the legislative process. While the law was in effect, it appeared simply to redirect the money flow to party committees.

Mr. Dann resigned after 16 months in office. After an interim appointment, the state held an election for a successor, won by another Democrat, Richard Cordray. Out-of-state plaintiffs' law firms gave little cash directly to Mr. Cordray's campaign, but in 2007 and 2008 they contributed $830,000 to the Ohio Democratic Party candidates' fund, which passed about $2 million to support Mr. Cordray.

Mr. Cordray then launched what he called an "aggressive" litigation strategy. Six law firms so far have been retained to represent Ohio pension funds in new lawsuits; five of the firms donated a total of $300,000 to the state Democratic party candidates' fund in 2008.

Mr. Cordray said the shareholder suits "have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with standing up for Ohio's pension systems, retirees and investors who have been harmed by corporate wrongdoing."

Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill received campaign contributions from out-of-state plaintiffs' firms.

State officials, in deflecting pay-to-play allegations, often say they pick law firms on merit by first issuing a public "request for proposals," or RFP; law firms then compete to be on a list that pension funds will use for any future litigation. But some lawyers say the RFP process itself can be a political fund-raising opportunity.

Rhode Island General Treasurer Frank Caprio told the state Investment Commission on March 26, 2008, that he planned to issue an RFP for additional securities-litigation law firms. Five days later, Mr. Caprio received 26 campaign donations, totaling $23,000, from people associated with two New York plaintiffs' firms, Labaton Sucharow and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Both were among the four selected.

Last summer, after local reporters asked about law-firm contributions, Mr. Caprio returned $54,250 from those firms and five others. His campaign committee said it hadn't solicited the donations, and returned them because Mr. Caprio "wanted to assure taxpayers that he makes decisions based on what is best for the state of Rhode Island."

Neither Bernstein Litowitz nor Labaton Sucharow had any comment on the Rhode Island matter.

Once law firms make it onto a pension fund's list of potential litigators, they typically monitor the client's holdings and suggest lawsuits when they spot a stock drop that may be due to some corporate abuse. There's no cost to the pension fund in suing, because the lawyers work on a contingent-fee basis.

In the case of CVS Caremark, on Jan. 15 a lawyer representing Labaton Sucharow contacted Norfolk County's Mr. Connolly and other Massachusetts pension-fund overseers by email.

In the message, reviewed by the Journal, the lawyer recited an alleged "fact pattern" of belated disclosures by the drugstore chain leading to the "biggest drop in 8 years" in CVS's stock price in November.

Two of the pension funds agreed to be represented by Labaton Sucharow in the suit, which alleges CVS didn't disclose certain problems early enough. CVS said it doesn't comment on pending litigation.

A third pension fund suing CVS, the Brockton (Mass.) Retirement System, also received the Labaton Sucharow solicitation, but had just signed up with another law firm. Harold Hannah, the Brockton fund's executive director, says he gets many duplicate lawsuit suggestions. "I'm tired of it," he said.

"A good portion of these cases are ginned up by the plaintiffs' attorneys who go shopping for clients," said Robert Litan, a former Clinton administration Justice Department official now at the Brookings Institution.

"It shouldn't be the case that plaintiffs' lawyers should make contributions to public officials and turn around and get legal business from them," he said. "You want the best lawyer, not the one with the biggest campaign checkbook."

Tensions over the confluence of politics and lawsuits are on show at the $40 billion Massachusetts state pension fund, which in recent years has sued companies including Bear Stearns, Schering Plough and Fannie Mae.

The pension-fund board's executive director, Michael Travaglini, seems a reluctant litigant. "Nobody has convinced me of the value" of filing such a lawsuit, he said, as opposed to simply claiming a pro-rata share of any eventual settlement in a suit filed by somebody else.

Asked why the Massachusetts board has filed shareholder suits, Mr. Travaglini said the state treasurer and the state's current and past attorneys general have been interested in using such suits to spur corporate-governance reforms. All three officials received donations from securities class-action lawyers, records show.

The state pension board's most recent hiring of securities litigators came in 2005. Mr. Travaglini says the board issued an RFP, mostly at the behest of its chairman, Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill.

While the RFP was pending, Mr. Cahill received $10,000 in $500 donations from people associated with Labaton Sucharow. It was one of four firms later selected. Bernstein Liebhard lawyers and family members contributed $5,500 to Mr. Cahill in the weeks after that firm, too, was selected.

Mr. Travaglini said he didn't know about the donations and they had no effect on the selection process. Mr. Cahill said he would let Mr. Travaglini speak for him.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley pushed for a new RFP in 2009 to expand the state's stable of plaintiffs' law firms to as many as 12, according to Mr. Travaglini. "I said, 'This is crazy,' " he said, because his staff was already busy with lawsuit suggestions from the current four firms.

The RFP was put on hold while Ms. Coakley ran, unsuccessfully, for Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat. Her staff didn't respond to requests for comment.

In the biggest cases, legal fees can run in the millions. That's what happened in a suit by Calpers, the California pension fund, against UnitedHealth Group Inc., where stock options were backdated. The suit was filed for Calpers by the San Diego law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.

That firm is a descendent of the famed plaintiffs' firm once called Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which split in two in 2004.

Coughlin Stoia filed the suit for Calpers in July 2006. A month later, Coughlin Stoia and its attorneys contributed $107,000 to the gubernatorial campaign of Phil Angelides, who as California's then-treasurer was a member of Calpers's board.

Asked whether the donations were related to the hiring of the law firm, a spokeswoman for Mr. Angelides declined to say, but said that Mr. Angelides "was one of a number of members of the Calpers board and he had tens of thousands of donations during the eight years he was treasurer." He now leads a national board investigating the causes of the financial crisis.

Coughlin Stoia's spokesman—who previously worked for Mr. Angelides—said some of the firm's lawyers "actively support causes they believe in," including candidates.

Calpers said that its general counsel, not the board on which Mr. Angelides sat, picks outside litigators, adding that Coughlin Stoia was chosen based on its experience and resources.

The UnitedHealth suit was settled in August for $925 million. Calpers's share of that came to $3.2 million. The legal fee was $65 million. Most of it went to Coughlin Stoia.

Write to Mark Maremont at mark.maremont@wsj.com, Tom McGinty at tom.mcginty@wsj.com and Nathan Koppel at nathan.koppel@wsj.com

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Follow up to Legal Reform Summit panelists

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: ________
Sent: 10/26/2010 4:23:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: To Legal Reform Summit Panelists: I hope you will be "fulsome" tomorrow

In follow up to my previous email to you, I wish to say that it seems to me there is a potential "conflict of interest" for panelists who are partners at large law firms which earn large legal fees from representing corporate defendants in class action lawsuits and that this may prevent them from being "fulsome" in speaking about the need for legal reform.

I wrote Mr. Nocera and Ms. O'Donnell this letter raising this question.

I hope you will be "fulsome" tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Friday, October 15, 2010

"Conflict of interest" at Legal Reform Summit

Reporters Joe Nocera of The New York Times and Norah O'Donnell of NBC News are moderators at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Legal Reform Summit. I sent them the following letter about a "conflict of interest" at the conference:


From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: bizday@nytimes.com, nbcnews@msnbc.com
CC: lrickard@uschamber.com
Sent: 10/15/2010 7:33:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "Conflict of interest" at US Chamber of Commerce Legal Reform Summit

October 15, 2010

VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL

Mr. Joe Nocera
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Ms. Norah O'Donnell
NBC News
60 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10012

Re: "Conflict of interest" at US Chamber of Commerce Legal Reform Summit

Dear Mr. Nocera and Ms. O'Donnell,

This is in follow up to my previous email/letter to you.

Most of the panelists at the Legal Reform Summit are lawyers from large law firms. These law firms make tens of millions of dollars in legal fees from representing the corporations which are defendants in the class action lawsuits and other litigation that the US Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for Legal Reform find objectionable and regarding which they believe legal reform is badly needed.

Given the financial interest that these panelists and their law firms have in the objectionable litigation in question, and in its continuation, one can wonder about the extent to which this "conflict of interest" will color what the panelists are willing to say at the Legal Reform Summit.

I am sure there are reasons for the Chamber's selection of its panelists at the Legal Reform Summit. You, as reporters, however, might be skeptical about the fulsomeness of the presentations you hear at the conference. I hope you will think about this.

Sincerely,

Robert Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

cc. Ms. Lisa Rickard (via email)

Legal Reform Summit

The Institute for Legal Reform of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been having an annual Legal Reform Summit for several years ( www.legalreformsummit.com ). I have sent this year's panelists the following email:

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: ______________
Sent: 10/13/2010 ________.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: To Legal Reform Summit Panelists: re Business Ethics

I contend that plaintiffs' lawyers undermine business ethics. You may find my argumentation set forth in this article: Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics?

I believe this contention provides a further reason for the need for legal reform, which reason has been little explored.

I hope you will read my article and tell me what you think.

Thank you.

Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

AL AG candidates Strange and Anderson

I live in Alabama and am trying to get the candidates for Alabama attorney general, Luther Strange and James Anderson, to articulate their positions:

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: james@AndersonforAG.com
CC: info@lutherstrange.com
Sent: 10/13/2010 6:55:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: Economic recovery, ethics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and attorneys general

Dear Mr. Anderson,

I have previously emailed you and other Alabama AG candidates in July.

I continue to believe there are important questions related to the roles of plaintiff's' lawyers and the Alabama attorney general that have bearing on important public concerns of economic recovery and ethics. These are elucidated in entries I have made in my blog here and here.

I don't know the extent to which you or Luther Strange is prepared to state your views about these questions.

I am prepared to do volunteer campaigning on your behalf (and/or on behalf of Luther Strange- see below email to him) depending on the views you are prepared to enunciate on these issues.

Thank you.

Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL


From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: info@lutherstrange.com
Sent: 10/12/2010 7:53:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: I am possible volunteer re: your ethics campaign issue

Dear Mr. Strange,

Last November I sent you the below email. I continue to be interested. Please contact me if you would like me to do volunteer work for you on this matter.

Thank you.
Rob Shattuck


From: RDShatt
To: info@lutherstrange.com
Sent: 11/21/2009 5:57:34 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: I am possible volunteer re: your ethics campaign issue
Dear Mr. Strange,

I may like to volunteer as a campaign worker related to your campaign issue of ethics.
If you are interested, please go to this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/E1.%20State%20attorney%20generals and read my blog posts there, which will indicate certain views I have about ethics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and attorneys general.

If, after you read the posts, you think there is some correspondence between your thinking and my thinking about these subjects, and that I might be of assistance to you in your campaigning related to the same, please let me hear from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586