Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, shareholders of Ness Technologies, Inc. (Ness), moved to expedite proceedings in this putative class action, which they filed to enjoin a proposed transaction through which Ness's largest shareholder, Citi Venture Capital International (CVCI), would, through a wholly owned subsidiary, acquire Ness in a cash transaction at $7.75 per share (Proposed Transaction). Plaintiffs contended that the Proposed Transaction was the product of a flawed sales process and that the members of the Board, aided and abetted by CVCI, breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the class by approving the transaction. Plaintiffs asserted both price and process claims and claims that the Board's disclosures regarding the Proposed Transaction were inadequate. The court held that plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Proceedings was granted only to the extent that they could take expedited, but necessarily limited and focused, discovery regarding the question of whether either the Board's or the Special Committee's financial advisors were conflicted because of their relationships with CVCI. The motion was denied in all other aspects.

This case arose when Del Monte Foods Company announced that it had agreed to be acquired by a consortium of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar Capital Partners, and Centerview Partners (collectively, Sponsors). A number of familiar entrepreneurial plaintiffs' firms filed putative class actions challenging the merger. Plaintiffs subsequently sought an interim award of attorneys' fees and expenses for causing defendants to issue supplemental disclosures and obtaining a preliminary injunction. The court held that the application for an interim fee award was granted with respect to benefits conferred by the Proxy Supplement. For those benefits, Lead Counsel was awarded fees and expenses of $2.75 million. Therefore, the court held that the application was otherwise denied without prejudice and could be renewed at a later time.

This case stemmed from Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.'s ("RGH") and Reliance Financial Services Corporation's ("RFS") voluntary petitions in Bankruptcy Court seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the trust that was established as a result. The trust subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging actuarial fraud and accounting fraud against respondents. At issue was whether the trust qualified for the so-called single-entity exemption that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), 15 U.S.C. 77p(f)(2)(C); 78bb(f)(5)(D), afforded certain entities. The court held that the trust, established under the bankruptcy reorganization plan of RGH as the debtor's successor, was "one person" within the meaning of the single-entity exemption in SLUSA. As a result, SLUSA did not preclude the Supreme Court from adjudicating the state common law fraud claims that the trust had brought against respondents for the benefit of RGH's and RFS's bondholders. Accordingly, the court reversed and reinstated the order of the Supreme Court.

Plaintiff, a significant stockholder in a holding company managed by the individual defendants, alleged, both on behalf of a class and derivatively, breaches of fiduciary duty regarding defendants' adoption of a stock buyback plan, their adoption of an options plan, issuance of the options to themselves, and the decision by the company to vote in favor of a transaction involving the sale of a subsidiary's interest in a third entity. At issue was whether the court should grant defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Count II only with regard to the claim that defendants' vote of Winmill & Co. Incorporated's ("Winmill") interest in Bexil Corporation in favor of the York Insurance Services Group, Inc. sale was self-interested and unfair to Winmill. The court otherwise granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

Respondent, First Derivative Traders, representing a class of stockholders in petitioner Janus Capital Group, Inc. ("JCG"), filed a private action under the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5, alleging that JCG and its wholly owned subsidiary, petitioner Janus Capital Management LLC ("JCM"), made false statements in mutual funds prospectuses filed by Janus Investment Fund, for which JCM was the investment adviser and administrator, and that those statements affected the price of JCG's stock. Although JCG created Janus Investment Fund, it was a separate legal entity owned entirely by mutual fund investors. At issue was whether JCM, a mutual fund investment adviser, could be held liable in a private action under Rule 10b-5 for false statements included in its client mutual funds' prospectuses. The Court held that, because the false statements included in the prospectuses were made by Janus Investment Fund, not by JCM, JCM and JCG could not be held liable in a private action under Rule 10b-5. The Court found that, although JCM could have been significantly involved in preparing the prospectuses, it did not itself "make" the statements at issue for Rule 10b-5 purposes where its assistance in crafting what was said was subject to Janus Investment Fund's ultimate control. Accordingly, respondent had not stated a claim against JCM under Rule 10b-5 and the judgment of the Fourth Circuit was reversed.

Defendants faxed unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and others, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227. One of the recipients filed a proposed class action in Wisconsin, but dismissed its complaint after the four-year limitations period had run, but before the class was certified. Plaintiff's motion to intervene was denied. The district court denied a motion to dismiss plaintiff's subsequent complaint, reasoning that the limitations period was tolled by the state court filing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on interlocutory appeal.

The Shoen family controls AMERCO. AMERCO engaged in numerous business transactions with SAC entities, which are real estate holding companies controlled by AMERCO shareholder and executive Mark Shoen. Based on several of those transactions, Appellants-Shareholders filed an underlying shareholder derivative lawsuit against AMERCOâs former and current directors and the SAC entities, primarily for breach of fiduciary duty. However, appellants failed to make a demand for corrective action on AMERCOâs board of directors. Subsequently, AMERCO moved to dismiss the lawsuit. Appellants appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again granted AMERCOâs motion to dismiss, this time because of a settlement agreement that dated back to 1995 in which shareholders agreed not to bring shareholder derivative lawsuits against AMERCO. Appellants sought the Supreme Courtâs review of the district courtâs second dismissal of their case. They asked whether the settlement bars their present lawsuit against AMERCO. The Supreme Court found that the settlement does not bar Appellantsâ case. The Court again reversed the district courtâs decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs appealed from judgments dismissing their class-action complaints seeking to hold defendants (collectively, "Rating Agencies") liable as underwriters or control persons for misstatements or omissions in securities offering documents in violation of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act"), 15 U.S.C. 77k(a)(5), 77o(a). At issue was whether the Rating Agencies were "underwriters" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(11) because they helped structure securities transactions to achieve desired ratings. Also at issue was whether the Rating Agencies were "control persons" because of their alleged provision of advice and direction to primary violators regarding transaction structures under section 77o(a) of the 1933 Act. The court held that plaintiffs' section 11 claims that the Rating Agencies were "underwriters" was properly dismissed because the Rating Agencies' alleged structuring or creation of securities was insufficient to demonstrate their involvement in the requisite distributional activities. The court also held that plaintiffs' "control person" claims under section 77o(a) were properly dismissed because the Rating Agencies' provision of advice and guidance regarding transaction structures was insufficient to permit an inference that they had the power to direct the management or policies of alleged primary violators of section 11. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying implicitly plaintiffs' cursory requests for leave to amend.