Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation et al

Filing 343

ORDER GRANTING 332 333 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

12
13

No. C 16-02627 WHA
No. C 16-02670 WHA
No. C 16-03072 WHA

LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES
LITIGATION.

(CONSOLIDATED)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In re

/
ORDER GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

This Document Relates to:
ALL ACTIONS.

14

/

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

In these consolidated PSLRA class actions, the lead plaintiff moves for preliminary

18

approval of a proposed settlement agreement. The motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT

19
20

The background of these consolidated actions has been set forth in prior orders (see, e.g.,

21

Dkt. Nos. 181, 252). In short, defendant LendingClub Corporation, which operated an online

22

peer-to-peer marketplace to match borrowers with lenders for various loans, completed an initial

23

public offering of its common stock in December 2014. The registration statement that

24

LendingClub issued and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of that IPO

25

contained certain representations regarding, among other things, LendingClub’s internal

26

controls, procedures, and data-security protocols. In May 2016, however, numerous

27

discrepancies, weaknesses, and improprieties in LendingClub’s business operations came to

28

light, causing its share price to drop and various securities rating agencies to downgrade
LendingClub.

1

These securities actions followed. All three were related to the undersigned judge and

2

subsequently consolidated with Water and Power Employees’ Retirement, Disability and Death

3

Plan of the City of Los Angeles (“WPERP”) as the lead plaintiff. A prior order certified the

4

following class (Dkt. Nos. 252 at 22–23, 255):

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of LendingClub Corporation (“LendingClub” or the
“Company”) during the period from December 11, 2014 through
May 6, 2016 (for claims under the Exchange Act of 1934) and all
those who purchased or acquired LendingClub common stock
during the period from December 11, 2014 through June 8, 2015
(for claims under the 1933 Securities Act) and were damaged
thereby (collectively, the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are
short sellers who incurred losses during the class period as a result
of their short sales, defendants and their families, the officers,
directors, and affiliates of defendants, at all relevant times,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Class shall include any
investment company or pooled investment fund, including, but not
limited to, mutual fund families, exchange traded funds, fund of
funds and hedge funds, in which the Underwriter Defendants, or
any of them, have, has or may have a direct or indirect interest, or
as to which any Underwriter Defendant’s affiliates may act as an
investment advisor, but as to which any Underwriter Defendant
alone or together with any of its respective affiliates is neither a
majority owner nor the holder of a majority beneficial interest.

17

Significantly, that order specifically excluded from the class definition “short sellers who

18

incurred losses from short sales during the class period” to account for “the practical difficulties

19

of tracing the short seller’s loss to any alleged fraud” (id. at 22).

20

The lead plaintiff has now filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a

21

proposed class settlement (Dkt. No. 333). For purposes of the instant motion only, the parties

22

also filed a stipulated request to modify the foregoing class definition in three ways. First, they

23

wish to change the start of the class period from December 11, 2014, to December 10, 2014, for

24

claims under the 1933 Securities Act. Second, they wish to erase the exclusion of “short sellers

25

who incurred losses during the class period as a result of their short sales.” Third, they wish to

26

change “defendants and their families” to “defendants and their immediate families” (emphasis

27

added) in the list of excluded categories. The purpose of these changes would be to fully

28
2

1

subsume the class in a parallel state litigation so that both that litigation and this one could be

2

settled in one fell swoop (Dkt. No. 332).

3

Again, the parties request these changes to our class definition for purposes of settlement

4

only. Should the settlement fall through, the class definition would revert to that set forth in the

5

class certification order. Having considered the parties’ stipulation, the Court GRANTS their

6

request to modify the class definition for purposes of settlement only.

7
8
9

ANALYSIS
“A settlement should be approved if ‘it is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.’”
Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
Preliminary approval is appropriate if “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly

12

grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the

13

range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D.

14

Cal. 2007) (Chief Judge Vaughn Walker). Here, the proposed settlement agreement satisfies

15

these requirements.

16

1.

17

The proposed settlement agreement establishes a gross settlement fund of $125 million

18

(Dkt. No. 333-1 ¶ 1.31). Lead counsel in both the federal and state actions intend to seek up to

19

approximately $16 million in attorney’s fees and $650,000 in litigation expenses, to be paid out

20

of the gross settlement fund (Dkt. Nos. 333 at 19, 333-1 at 51). Additionally, the claims

21

administrator estimates that notice and administration expenses may cost up to $1.25 million,

22

which would also be paid out of the gross settlement fund (Dkt. No. 333-6 ¶ 21). The net

23

settlement fund that remains after these deductions will then be distributed on a pro rata basis to

24

class members who complete and timely submit a valid proof-of-claim and release form, based

25

on recognized losses calculated from information provided on said form (including, for example,

26

when each claimant bought and sold LendingClub stock) (see Dkt. No. 333-1 at 71–82).

27
28

BENEFIT TO CLASS MEMBERS.

Any balance remaining after the initial distribution will be reallocated among authorized
claimants until the net settlement fund dips below five thousand dollars. At that point, according
3

1

to the proposed settlement agreement, the remainder would be donated to “Second Harvest Food

2

Bank or to another 501(c)(3) non-profit organization unaffiliated with Federal and State Lead

3

Counsel and approved by the Court” (Dkt. No. 333-1 ¶ 6.8). The Court would prefer that the

4

donation go to an organization with a purpose that bears a closer nexus to the claims asserted

5

herein. At this stage, however, this detail does not preclude preliminary approval of the

6

proposed settlement agreement.

7

The gross settlement fund of $125 million represents approximately seventeen percent of

$711 million. If LendingClub proved incapable of paying a judgment of that size, however, then

10

the remaining defendants would face only approximately $140 million in damages, in which case

11
For the Northern District of California

the total estimated damages that would be recoverable if the lead plaintiff prevailed at trial, i.e.,

9

United States District Court

8

the $125 million gross settlement would represent approximately 89 percent of the total

12

estimated damages recoverable at trial (Dkt. No. 333 at 14). The difference between the

13

maximum possible recovery and the gross settlement fund accounts for not only the risk of

14

LendingClub’s insolvency but also avoided risks and costs of litigation, including the accrued

15

fees and expenses of counsel, the risk of an adverse jury verdict, and the risks and costs of

16

“lengthy appeals that would inevitably follow” (see id. at 2) even if the lead plaintiff prevails at

17

trial. Given that this proposed settlement agreement comes after nearly two years of litigation,

18

discovery, and motion practice, including prior orders on a motion to dismiss and on class

19

certification (see id. at 11), both sides have had ample opportunity to carefully assess and weigh

20

the relative strengths and weaknesses of their legal positions. The discounted settlement amount

21

seems to reflect those considerations.
SCOPE OF THE RELEASE.

22

2.

23

The proposed settlement agreement contains a release of claims that exceeds the scope of

24

the certified class claims. Specifically, the proposed settlement agreement provides (Dkt. No.

25

333-1 ¶¶ 1.25, 1.42 (emphasis in original)):

26
27
28

“Released Claims” means any and all claims, rights, causes of
action, liabilities, actions, suits, damages, or demands (including
Unknown Claims as defined in ¶ 1.42 herein) of any kind
whatsoever, that Federal Lead Plaintiff, State Class
Representatives, or any other Class Member has that relate in any
way to the purchase, acquisition, holding, sale, or disposition of
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

LendingClub common stock by Class Members during the period
between December 10, 2014 through May 6, 2016, inclusive, and
either: (a) arise out of or are based upon or related to the facts
alleged or the claims or allegations set forth in the Litigations; or
(b) relate in any way to any alleged violation of the 1933 Act or
the Exchange Act or any other state, federal or foreign
jurisdiction’s securities or other laws, any alleged misstatement,
omission or disclosure (including in financial statements) or other
alleged securities-related wrongdoing or misconduct by the
Released Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, “Released
Claims” does not include claims relating to any LendingClub
shares that were purchased or acquired before December 10, 2014
or claims relating to the enforcement of the settlement.
*
*
*
“Unknown Claims” means (i) any Released Claims that Releasing
Plaintiffs and Class Members do not know or suspect to exist in
his, her or its favor at the time of the release, which, if known by
him, her or it, might have affected his, her or its settlement with
and release of the Released Defendants, or might have affected his,
her or its settlement with and release of the Released Defendants,
or might have affected his, her or its decision not to object to this
settlement or seek exclusion from this settlement, and (ii) any
Releasing Defendants’ Claims that Releasing Defendants do not
know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor at the time of the
release, which, if known by him, her or it, might have affected his,
her or its settlement with and release of the Released Plaintiffs and
Class Members. With respect to any and all Released Claims and
Releasing Defendants’ Claims, the Settling Parties stipulate and
agree that, upon the Effective Date, Federal Lead Plaintiff and
State Class Representatives shall expressly waive and each of the
Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the
Judgment shall have, expressly waived the provisions, rights, and
benefits of California Civil Code § 1542 and any law of any state
or territory of the United States, or principle of common law,
which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil
Code § 1542, which provides:
A general release does not extend to claims
which the creditor does not know or suspect to
exist in his or her favor at the time of executing
the release, which if known by him or her must
have materially affected his or her settlement
with the debtor.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Releasing Plaintiffs and Class Members may hereafter discover
facts in addition to or different from those which he, she or it now
knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject matter of
the Released Claims, but Federal Lead Plaintiff and State Class
Representatives shall expressly settle and release and each Class
Member, upon the Effective Date, shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever
settled and released any and all Released Claims, known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent,
disclosed or undisclosed, matured or unmatured, whether or not
concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed,
5

1

upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into
existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which
is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any
duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or
existence of such different or additional facts. Federal Lead
Plaintiff and State Class Representatives acknowledge, and the
Class Members shall be deemed by operation of the Judgment to
have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately
bargained for and a key element of the settlement of which this
release is a part.

2
3
4
5
6

Although the undersigned judge typically requires that a release of class claims “be
7
limited only to the claims certified for class treatment” and avoid “releasing claims that ‘could
8
have been brought’” (see Dkt. No. 13 at 3), this particular release is anchored to “the purchase,
9
acquisition, holding, sale, or disposition of LendingClub common stock by Class Members
10
judge recently granted preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement agreement with
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

during the [class] period” (see Dkt. No. 333 at 7). In another securities case, the undersigned
11
12
substantially identical language in its release of claims. See Luna v. Marvell, Case No. 15-5447
13
(Dkt. Nos. 220 ¶¶ 1.25, 1.33; 224 at 4:9–7:9). The same language suffices for purposes of
14
preliminary approval here.
15
3.

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS.

16
As stated, lead counsel in both the federal and state actions intend to seek up to
17
approximately $16 million in attorney’s fees and $650,000 in litigation expenses, to be paid out
18
of the settlement fund. In addition, the state class representatives may seek incentive awards —
19
up to five thousand dollars apiece — from the state court, but any such service award would be
20
paid out of any fees and expenses awarded to lead counsel in the state action (Dkt. No. 333-1 ¶
21
3.5). While the prospect of these forthcoming requests does not prevent preliminary approval at
22
this stage, the parties are advised that the requested amount of attorney’s fees and costs will be
23
subject to close scrutiny and potential reduction at the final approval stage.
24
In addition, as cautioned in the “Notice Regarding Factors to be Evaluated for Any
25
Proposed Class Settlement,” the requests for incentive awards to the state class representatives is
26
a “red flag” (Dkt. No. 13 at 5). Although those requests will be directed to the state court, they
27
nevertheless raise the concern that incentive awards have been thrown in to the bargain to make
28
a flawed or inadequate settlement more “palatable” to some of the players involved because any
6

1

proposed settlement agreement that purports to cover both the federal and state litigations would

2

ostensibly need the consent of the state class representatives as well. At this stage, however, the

3

proposed settlement agreement does not provide for any automatic incentive award, no request

4

for any such award has been made yet, and the proposed settlement agreement will not be

5

contingent on the outcome of any such request. Preliminary approval thus remains appropriate.

6

4.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

7

Another factor weighing in favor of preliminary approval is that the proposed settlement

8

agreement came about as a result of extensive mediation efforts supervised by Chief Magistrate

9

Judge Joseph Spero, including two in-person settlement conferences and subsequent
deliberations. Indeed, the proposed amount of $125 million for a global settlement came from

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Judge Spero’s mediator’s proposal (see Dkt. No. 333 at 5–6, 10). This background is not

12

dispositive of but nevertheless relevant to the question of whether this proposed settlement

13

agreement appears to be “the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations.” See In

14

re Tableware, 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1079.

15

CONCLUSION

16

Subject to the foregoing, the lead plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval

17

of the class action settlement is GRANTED. Based solely upon the assurances that class counsel

18

made during the hearing on this motion, the firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC is hereby APPOINTED as

19

claims administrator.

20

The proof-of-claim and release form is APPROVED.

21

By MARCH 23 AT NOON, counsel shall resubmit the proposed notice (for first-class mail)

22

and summary notice (for publication in The Wall Street Journal and transmission over Business

23

Wire) for Court approval with the following modifications. First, the estimated amount of

24

attorney’s fees that class counsel expect to request must also be expressed as a dollar amount,

25

not just as “14% of the Net Settlement Fund” (see Dkt. No. 333-2 at 13, 24). Second, class

26

members must be clearly informed about how two groups of attorneys in the federal and state

27

litigations would split the requested fee award. Again, this estimated split must also be

28

expressed as dollar amounts, not just as percentages. In this connection, the notice should
7

1

clearly explain how much work class counsel did in the federal and state litigations, including,

2

for example, the specific numbers of depositions taken and documents reviewed in each

3

litigation, as well as any motion practice to date. Third, in addition to making clear how the

4

requested attorney’s fees, expenses, and administration costs will impact the settlement fund, the

5

notices must provide clear estimates — again, expressed as dollar amounts — of the net amounts

6

that will ultimately be distributed to class members. All of the foregoing must be explained in

7

plain English in both the notice and the summary notice.

8
9

If counsel submits revised versions of the proposed notices with the foregoing revisions
by March 17 at 5:00 p.m., then the undersigned judge will try to respond by the following
Monday. In all events, counsel shall submit, along with the proposed notices, a revised proposed

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

timeline for administering the settlement that takes into account the delay in obtaining Court

12

approval for said notices.

13
14

The final pretrial conference and trial dates, as well as other pending deadlines in this
action, are hereby VACATED and will be reset if final approval is not granted.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: March 16, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8