Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System et al v. Adelson et al

Filing 59

ORDER that KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP is appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action. REISMAN SOROKAC is appointed as liaison counsel. Plaintiffs shall file a joint consolidated complaint by close of business on November 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
NASSER MORADI, RICHARD
)
BUCKMAN, DOUGLAS
)
TOMLINSON, and MATT
)
ABBEDUTO, derivatively on behalf of )
LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
)
SHELDON GARY ADELSON,
)
MICHAEL A. LEVEN, CHARLES D. )
FORMAN, IRWIN A. SIEGEL, IRWIN )
CHAFETZ, GEORGE P. KOO,
)
JEFFREY H. SCHWARTZ, JASON N. )
ADER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 11-cv-00490-GMN-RJJ Base Case
consolidated with
11-cv-00595-GMN-RJJ and
11-cv-00636-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

INTRODUCTION

17

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Matt Abbeduto, Richard Buckman, Nasser Moradi,

18

Douglas Tomlinson‟s (“Moradi Plaintiffs”) and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees

19

Retirement System‟s (“LAMPERS”) Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel.

20

The Moradi Plaintiffs filed the first shareholder derivative action on April 1, 2011, case

21

number 2:11-cv-00490-GMN-RJJ. Moradi Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate cases and

22

appoint lead counsel on May 18, 2011. LAMPERS filed a second derivative action on April

23

18, 2011, case number 2:11-cv-00595-GMN-RJJ, and John Zaremba filed a third action on

24

April 22, 2011, case number 2:11-cv-00636-GMN-RJJ. LAMPERS filed a motion to

25

consolidate and appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel on May 19, 2011. On July 7, 2011,

Page 1 of 6

1

Plaintiff Stephen Hardy was substituted as the representative plaintiff in place of John Zaremba

2

in the third action. Plaintiff Hardy joins in the Moradi Plaintiffs‟ motion to consolidate and

3

appoint lead counsel.
The Court granted the parties‟ motions to consolidate on August 25, 2011 and set a

4
5

hearing for the parties‟ motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel (ECF No. 52). A

6

hearing was held on October 6, 2011. For the following reasons the Court will not appoint a

7

lead plaintiff and will appoint the Kendall Law Group, LLP as lead counsel and Reisman

8

Sorokac as liaison counsel.
FACTS

9

Plaintiffs brought the instant suit following an investigation by the Department of Justice

10
11

into Las Vegas Sands‟ compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (“FCPA”). Plaintiffs

12

allege that the Sands Board of Directors and certain of its officers breached their fiduciary

13

duties in connection with violations of the FCPA. Apparently that investigation was brought

14

following a breach of contract lawsuit brought by former Sands‟ employee, Steven C. Jacobs

15

against Sands on October 20, 2010. Jacobs alleges that he was tortuously discharged after he

16

was told to conduct illegal actions in gaining leverage in the Macau market, where Sands has a

17

large resort. Plaintiffs filed the instant derivative shareholder suits alleging (1) breach of

18

fiduciary duty, (2) abuse of control, (3) waste of corporate assets, and (4) conspiracy.
DISCUSSION

19
20
21

A.

Appoint Lead Plaintiff
LAMPERS asks the Court to appoint it as lead plaintiff in the consolidated actions. The

22

Moradi Plaintiffs argue that there is no need to appoint a lead plaintiff as supported by In re

23

Arena Pharm., Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., Case No. 10-cv-2079 BTM (BLM), 2011 WL

24

830109, at *1-*3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2011). The court in In re Arena Pharm. recognized that

25

while there is a statute to appoint a lead plaintiff in a securities fraud action, i.e. the Private

Page 2 of 6

1

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104–67, 109 Stat. 737

2

(1995), there is no such statue addressing the appointment of a lead plaintiff in derivative

3

actions. Id. at *1. “Rather, derivative actions must comply with Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules

4

of Civil Procedure, which requires only that a plaintiff in a derivative action „fairly and

5

adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in

6

enforcing the right of the corporation or association.‟ Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.1.” In re Comverse

7

Tech., Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 06-CV-1849 (NGG)(RER), 2006 WL 3761986, at *1

8

(E.D.N.Y. Sept.22, 2006). “As explained in In re Comverse, because a plaintiff in a derivative

9

action is bringing claims on behalf of a company, it is unclear what benefits there are to

10

appointing a lead plaintiff, especially when lead counsel is appointed.” In re Arena Pharm.,

11

2011 WL 830109 at *2.
The parties have failed to cite to any Ninth Circuit authority indicating that a lead

12
13

plaintiff should be appointed, and as such, the Court declines to appoint a lead plaintiff.

14

B.

15

Appoint Lead Counsel
Courts have considered a variety of factors when appointing a lead counsel in

16

consolidated derivate actions. Some of these factors include: (l) the quality of the pleadings;

17

(2) the vigorousness of the prosecution of the lawsuits; and (3) the capabilities of counsel. In re

18

Bank of America Corp. Sec. Derivative and ERISA Lit., 258 F.R.D. 260, 272 (S.D.N. Y. 2009).

19

Some courts have also considered the criteria for appointing interim class counsel set forth in

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(l): (l) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential

21

claims in the action; (2) counsel‟s experience in handling class actions, other complex

22

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (3) counsel‟s knowledge of the

23

applicable law; and (4) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Id.; In

24

re Comverse, 2006 WL 3761986 at * 2-3.

25

The Moradi Plaintiffs‟ ask the Court to appoint the Kendall Law Group, LLP as lead

Page 3 of 6

1

counsel with Reisman Sorokac as liaison counsel. Plaintiff Hardy joins in the request to have

2

Kendall Law Group and Riesman Sorokac as lead and liaison counsel. LAMPERS requests the

3

appointment of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead counsel and the Law Office of

4

Curtis Coulter as liaison counsel.

5

Both the Moradi Plaintiffs and LAMPERS submitted detailed and professional

6

complaints. While LAMPERS‟ complaint exceeds the Moradi Plaintiffs‟ complaint by 15

7

pages and contains more factual detail that does not amount to the Moradi Plaintiffs‟ complaint

8

being inferior. Both parties adequately plead allegations that should survive a motion to

9

dismiss and gave detailed reasons why a demand on the Sands Board would be futile.

10

The court also has no doubt that both law firms would vigorously pursue this case.

11

However, the Court does note that LAMPERS has missed one deadline already in these early

12

stages of filing motions. (See ECF No. 38.) Both law firms represent plaintiffs who are

13

committed to vigorously pursue this action as well.

14

The Court finds most persuasive the Moradi Plaintiffs‟ arguments that it is best capable

15

of pursuing this litigation. Kendall Law Group has served as lead or liaison counsel in

16

numerous merger & acquisition, derivative, and securities class action matters. Kendall Law

17

Group and Reisman Sorokac have directly participated in the recovery of substantial

18

settlements on behalf of defrauded shareholders injured by illegal corporate activities, or

19

shareholders denied the appropriate valuation for their equity ownership in the wake of

20

successful and/or attempted corporate buy-outs, takeovers and other transactions involving

21

corporate restructurings, asset sales and/or mergers and acquisitions. Moreover, the firms‟

22

efforts have assisted in restoring many millions of dollars to corporate treasuries depleted by

23

the illegal practices and/or breaches of fiduciary duties by their corporate officers and directors.

24

The firms have also represented both individual and corporate defendants in numerous

25

securities class actions, investor claim-related litigation, shareholder derivative litigation,

Page 4 of 6

1

and/or other complex commercial litigations. The Kendall Law Group is currently involved in

2

three derivative suits involving the FCPA: Ferguson v. Raspino, et al., Cause No. 2010-23805

3

(281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas); In re Parker Drilling Company

4

Derivative Litigation, Cause No. 2010-34655 (61st Judicial District, Harris County, Texas); and

5

Neff v. Brady, et al., ex rel. Weatherford International, Ltd., Cause No. 2010-40764 (270th

6

Judicial District, Harris County, Texas). (McKey June 6 Decl., ¶6, ECF No. 29–2.)
Kessler Topaz has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of investor classes and

7
8

corporations in derivative actions. Kessler Topaz has more than 90 attorneys specializing in

9

complex shareholder litigation. Kessler Topaz strives not only to recoup corporations‟

10

financial losses for the benefit of all shareholders, but also to achieve corporate governance

11

changes that will hopefully prevent similar misconduct from recurring, strengthen the company

12

and make the board of directors a more effective and responsive representative of shareholders‟

13

interest. While Kessler Topaz has initiated an extensive campaign (over 100 shareholder

14

derivative actions) against options backdating, LAMPERS‟ arguments do not reveal any

15

experience regarding actions related to FCPA violations.
Clearly both law firms are more than qualified to handle this action. It also appears that

16
17

both firms have adequate resources to pursue the litigation. The Court finds that Kendall Law

18

Group is better suited however, because of its specific experience in suits involving allegations

19

of FCPA violations. Moreover, as the Moradi Plaintiffs were the first to file suit it would be

20

appropriate to assign Kendall Law Group as lead counsel. See, e.g., Biondi v. Scrushy, 820

21

A.2d 1148, 1159 (Del. Ch. 2003) (noting that courts will consider which action was filed first

22

for lead counsel purpose where “there is a need for an objective tie-breaker”).
It is for these reasons, and the reasons expressed at the October 6, 2011 hearing, that the

23
24

Court finds that the Kendall Law Group, LLP is best suited to be lead counsel for this

25

///

Page 5 of 6

1

consolidated action.1

2

CONCLUSION

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP is appointed as lead

4

counsel in the consolidated action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that REISMAN SOROKAC is appointed as liaison

5
6

counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a joint consolidated complaint by

7
8

close of business on November 21, 2011.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

9
10

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25

The Court rejects LAMPERS‟ arguments that the Court should consider the financial interest of the plaintiffs when
appointing lead counsel. While such a factor may be appropriate in PSLRA actions, there is no such factor in shareholder
derivative cases. See In re Comverse, 2006 WL 3761986 at *3 n.6.

Page 6 of 6