For many years, there have been qualified attorneys performing contingent fee services in securities class actions, consumer class actions, toxic tort and personal injury cases. But, historically at least, the contingent fee approach has not been a viable option for complex business cases. Why has this been the case? There seem to be three key reasons: Supply, demand, and tradition.
The Morgan Stanley case is the most recent example of the perils that corporate defendants face in the era of electronic discovery. Electronic evidence, and especially e-mail, now plays a starring role in litigation and investigations involving large corporations, particularly in areas such as employment discrimination, fraud and corporate mismanagement. Judges are increasingly familiar with electronic discovery, and are increasingly willing to impose heavy sanctions on corporations who do not comply with electronic discovery requests. As the Morgan Stanley case shows, the consequences of these sanctions can be dire. Therefore, it is important that companies take heed of the lessons of the Morgan Stanley case, and ensure that they have in place a comprehensive and effective system to recover and produce electronically stored documents.
Recent rulings you need to know.
Companies in Chapter 11 may have capital structures consisting of multiple tiers of debt and equity that have competing priorities of payment vis-'-vis the company and its assets. The claims and interests of these competing stakeholders may be resolved in a Chapter 11 plan. To emerge from Chapter 11, the company must obtain approval of a plan that deals with all creditor claims and equity interests in accordance with the (sometimes complicated) rules contained in the Bankruptcy Code. In an effort to achieve an agreed-upon Chapter 11 plan, some creditors may give up (or gift) a portion of the recovery to which they would otherwise be entitled to another class of creditors or equity holders.
Restructuring professionals must be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal courts on occasion have disqualified a professional or ordered the disgorgement of the professional's fees in situations where that professional failed to properly disclose a conflict of interest. The importance of conflicts of interest is especially evident in today's global economy, in which restructuring matters routinely involve many of the same parties.
The Second Circuit handed down a key creditors' rights decision on April 1 in Sharp Int'l Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (In re Sharp Int'l Corp. & Sharp Sales Corp.), 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5241(2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2005). The court affirmed the lower courts' finding that a secured lender was not liable for aiding and abetting management's breach of fiduciary duty, and not liable for receiving a $12.25 million loan repayment from a closely held borrower it correctly suspected of engaging in massive fraud. The decision limits the scope of a lender's duties to its borrower and other creditors. Absent the lender's participation in its borrower's fraud, the lender should have no liability on a fraudulent transfer theory or on any other basis, at least in New York, where Sharp arose.
The national settlement of the fen-phen lawsuits was intended, among other things, to help defendant Wyeth, one of the world's largest pharmaceuticals manufacturers, put the lawsuits behind it. However, the number of claimants who opted out of the settlement is huge, and many of their cases are now coming to trial, with mixed results. Recently approved changes to the settlement process are also altering plaintiffs' rights. In short, the last chapter of this epic litigation is a long way from being written. So, what is happening with the fen-phen settlement and litigitions?
The latest news from around the country.
News from around the country for your review.
