Narrative Opinion Summary
In a consolidated putative class action, plaintiffs, comprised of various retirement and investment accounts, accused certain banks of colluding to manipulate the market for bonds issued by government-sponsored entities. The Court faced the task of appointing interim class counsel from among four applicant law firms, considering criteria under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including prior work, class action experience, legal knowledge, and resource commitment. Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg were appointed as interim co-lead class counsel due to their role in filing the initial complaint, substantial investigative efforts, and representation of the Pennsylvania Treasury, a party with a significant financial interest in the case. The Court also noted their established e-discovery infrastructure as a slight advantage. Despite recognizing the qualifications of other firms, the Court expressed concerns over potential delegation of responsibilities by Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg, mandating that any delegation requires prior written approval. The appointment was finalized with these conditions, and specific docket entries were closed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appointment of Interim Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court applied Rule 23(g) criteria to appoint Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg as interim class counsel based on their initial complaint filing, substantial investigative work, and representation of a significant financial stakeholder.
Reasoning: When appointing interim class counsel, the Court considered factors outlined in Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as the counsel’s prior work on potential claims, experience in class actions and complex litigation, knowledge of relevant law, and commitment of resources.
Consideration of Financial Interest and Plaintiff Engagementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The financial interest of the Pennsylvania Treasury, represented by Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg, was deemed a persuasive factor, reflecting legislative intent to encourage active participation by lead plaintiffs.
Reasoning: Additionally, they represent the Treasury of Pennsylvania, which has a significant financial interest in the case, a factor that, while not determinative, was considered persuasive based on legislative intent regarding plaintiff engagement.
E-Discovery Infrastructure Advantagesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lowey Dannenberg's established e-discovery infrastructure provided a slight advantage over other firms in managing complex discovery processes.
Reasoning: While all firms involved could manage the complex discovery, Lowey Dannenberg's established e-discovery infrastructure gives it a slight advantage.
Restriction on Delegation of Lead Counsel Worksubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court imposed a restriction on Scott+Scott and Lowey Dannenberg, forbidding delegation of lead counsel work without prior written approval to ensure accountability and resource commitment.
Reasoning: The Court mandates that no delegation occurs without prior written approval.