Class Action (posted May 23, 2025) In re Vanguard Chester Funds Litig., 2025 WL 1435627 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2025). The plaintiffs in this class action claim their investment advisor, Vanguard, had structured several transactions to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs. The parties negotiated a settlement totaling $40 million, from which class counsel would receive $13 million. In a proceeding involving the same transaction(s), the SEC and Vanguard settled for $135 million, to be paid by Vanguard to investors. That settlement provided the $135 million would be reduced by the amount Vanguard paid in this case. Here, the court is asked to approve the $40 million settlement. In this opinion the court rejected the settlement. If the settlement had gone through, the lawyers would get $13 million. With no settlement of this case, the investors get their full $40 million share of the $135 million from the SEC proceeding. Beyond the simple math outlined here, the court dealt with a number of issues that might have favored the settlement, including whether class counsel were adequate. Coloring this "strange situation" (court's words) is neither Vanguard nor class counsel called the SEC proceeding or settlement to the court's attention; an individual class member did.

Current Client (posted May 23, 2025) McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc., 2025 WL 1425691 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2025). Breach of contract case. Plaintiff moved to disqualify the law firm for Defendants ("Law Firm") because Law Firm and one of Defendants are co-defendants in an unrelated case. In this opinion the court denied the motion to disqualify, saying those factors, standing alone, are not grounds for disqualification.

Insurance Defense; Reservation of Rights; Intervention (posted May 21, 2025) Lehan v. Wilson, 2025 WL 1334716 (D. Md. May 7, 2025). This opinion does not say who did what to whom except to suggest it's a civil case arising out of law enforcement activity. The issue is whether the company ("InsCo") insuring a gaming company defendant may intervene to submit damages interrogatories to the jury. InsCo reserved rights on a number of issues relating to false arrest and punitive damages. Nevertheless, InsCo is providing a defense to the gaming company. In this opinion the court granted InsCo's motion to intervene. The opinion discusses those cases in which the insurance company's intervention was not allowed versus those cases allowing intervention. What may have favored intervention here is InsCo's proposed jury interrogatories do not seem to involve coverage issues.

Conflict Uncategorized; "Competent Counsel" (posted May 19, 2025) Great Lakes Capital Fund v. Palmer Square Park Square GP LLC, No. 366631 (Mich. App. May 13, 2025). Plaintiffs sued Defendants for breach of contract. The trial court granted Plaintiffs summary judgement in the amount of $5.5 million. A special master ruled, among other things, Defendants had been "represented by competent counsel." (We are not sure how that finding fits in a breach of contract case.) Defendants claim, on appeal their lawyer was not competent because he had represented multiple parties and had a conflict of interest. In this opinion, affirming the judgement, the appellate court said a lawyer is not incompetent just because he represented multiple parties.

[Note: Items that do not fit under the conflicts categories below, but which we believe will be of interest to this audience will appear here at This and That.

Nothing current.

[Note: These, too, will appear at the This and That pages.]

Nothing current.

APPEALABILITY (To read full article, click here.)

(posted April 21, 2025) Henneman-Todman v. Johnson, 2025 WL 1147514 (V.I. April 15, 2025). In this opinion the V.I. Supreme Court held that an order disqualifying a lawyer cannot be reviewed under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule.

ARBITRATION OF MALPRACTICE CLAIMS (To read the full article, click here.

Nothing current.

BANKRUPTCY (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

BANKS/TRUST DEPARTMENTS (To read full article, click here.)

CHANGING FIRMS - SCREENING (To read full article, click here.)

(posted May 7, 2025) Hotel 237, LLC v. G.M. Canmar Residence Corp., No. 2024001714 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. Feb. 11, 2025). Lawyer first represented Defendant in this case. He filed the answer, "discovery responses, motion documents, and engaged in correspondence with plaintiff's counsel." Lawyer then joined the firm representing Plaintiff in this case. Defendant moved to disqualify Plaintiff's firm. The trial court granted the motion. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed. Plaintiff's firm claims it screened Lawyer from this case. The screen did not work because Lawyer came to Plaintiff's firm with "material" information about Defendant's case.

(posted April 28, 2025) Cast Iron Co., LLC v. Cast Iron Corp., No. 659391/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County April 3, 2025). Firm P represents Plaintiff. Firm D represents Defendant. Defendant moved to disqualify Firm P because Firm P has employed Lawyer, who previously worked at Firm D. While at Firm D, Lawyer had an opportunity to review the file for this case. Evidently, Firm P has not erected a screen between Lawyer and this case. In this opinion the court granted the motion to disqualify. The court relied, in substantial part, upon the fact that Lawyer had been the subject of an identical situation involving both law firms, with a similar result, but in a different case, Waldman v. Foote, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 15802 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx County Sept. 30, 2024).

CLASS ACTIONS (To read full article, click here.)

(posted May 23, 2025) In re Vanguard Chester Funds Litig., 2025 WL 1435627 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2025). The plaintiffs in this class action claim their investment advisor, Vanguard, had structured several transactions to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs. The parties negotiated a settlement totaling $40 million, from which class counsel would receive $13 million. In a proceeding involving the same transaction(s), the SEC and Vanguard settled for $135 million, to be paid by Vanguard to investors. That settlement provided the $135 million would be reduced by the amount Vanguard paid in this case. Here, the court is asked to approve the $40 million settlement. In this opinion the court rejected the settlement. If the settlement had gone through, the lawyers would get $13 million. With no settlement of this case, the investors get their full $40 million share of the $135 million from the SEC proceeding. Beyond the simple math outlined here, the court dealt with a number of issues that might have favored the settlement, including whether class counsel were adequate. Coloring this "strange situation" (court's words) is neither Vanguard nor class counsel called the SEC proceeding or settlement to the court's attention; an individual class member did.

(posted May 5, 2025) In re Valve Antitrust Litig., 2025 WL 1285748 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2025). Defendant distributes PC games. Both game publishers and game consumers have sued Defendant for anticompetitive practices. Four competing groups of lawyers seek appointment as interim class counsel for consumers. In this opinion the court rejected one law firm because that firm was already serving as class counsel for the publishers. That is a conflict of interest because the publishers and consumers will be competing over the percentage allocation of damages.

CO-COUNSEL/COMMON INTEREST (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS (To read full article, click .)

Nothing current.

CORPORATIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

CORPORATE FAMILIES (To read full article, click here.)

(posted April 28, 2025) McGuire v. The McGuire Grp., Inc. No. 212 CA 24-00558 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. April 25, 2025). Plaintiff, here represented by Law Firm, has left employment with Defendant and is claiming unpaid compensation from Defendant. Defendant moved to disqualify Law Firm because of Law Firm's representation of other companies ("Other Companies"), arguably related to Defendant. The owner of Defendant also owns holding companies, which own the Other Companies. The trial court denied the motion. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed. In addition to the attenuated nature of the relationship between Defendant and the Other Companies, the court was influenced by provisions in the contract between Defendant and the Other Companies, and in the engagement agreement between Law Firm and the Other Companies.

CURRENT CLIENT (To read full article, click here.)

(posted May 23, 2025) McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc., 2025 WL 1425691 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2025). Breach of contract case. Plaintiff moved to disqualify the law firm for Defendants ("Law Firm") because Law Firm and one of Defendants are co-defendants in an unrelated case. In this opinion the court denied the motion to disqualify, saying those factors, standing alone, are not grounds for disqualification.

DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

ENJOINING CONFLICTS (AND OTHER NON-TRADITIONAL REMEDIES) (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

EXPERT WITNESSES (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

FORMER CLIENT (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES - SUING ONE PART/REPRESENTING ANOTHER PART (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

INITIAL INTERVIEW - HEARING TOO MUCH (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

INSURANCE DEFENSE (To read full article, click here.)

Reservation of Rights; Intervention 

(posted May 21, 2025) Lehan v. Wilson, 2025 WL 1334716 (D. Md. May 7, 2025). This opinion does not say who did what to whom except to suggest it's a civil case arising out of law enforcement activity. The issue is whether the company ("InsCo") insuring a gaming company defendant may intervene to submit damages interrogatories to the jury. InsCo reserved rights on a number of issues relating to false arrest and punitive damages. Nevertheless, InsCo is providing a defense to the gaming company. In this opinion the court granted InsCo's motion to intervene. The opinion discusses those cases in which the insurance company's intervention was not allowed versus those cases allowing intervention. What may have favored intervention here is InsCo's proposed jury interrogatories do not seem to involve coverage issues.

INVESTING IN CLIENTS/STOCK FOR FEES (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

JOINT/MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION (To read full article, click here.)

Driver/Passenger 

(posted May 1, 2025) Taber-Cayer v. Persinger, 2025 WL 1220583 (D.V.I. April 28, 2025). Two-car accident case. Lawyer, representing the driver and passenger of one car, sued the driver of the other car. Given the possibility that the plaintiff-driver could be found responsible, in whole, or in part, the defendant moved to sever certain of the claims under Rule 21 of F.R.C.P. In this opinion the magistrate judge denied the motion. It is a long analysis of the applicability of Rule 21, not worth repeating here. If you have this situation, you may want to read the opinion. To us, the value of flagging the case is to illustrate the complication of a lawyer attempting the represent the driver and passenger in a two-car accident case. For other such cases, do a word search for "passenger" on our page, "Joint/Multiple Representation.

LAWYER AS EXPERT WITNESS OR CONSULTANT (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

MALPRACTICE LIABILITY/FEE FORFEITURES (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

OF COUNSEL (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

OPPOSING LAWYERS NEGOTIATING A LAW PRACTICE MERGER (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

STANDING (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

TRADE (AND OTHER) ASSOCIATIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

Nothing current.

WAIVERS/CONSENTS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

WITNESS - ADVERSE - CURRENT/FORMER CLIENT (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

ZERO SUM GAMES (To read full article, click here.)

(posted May 5, 2025) In re Valve Antitrust Litig., 2025 WL 1285748 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2025). To read about the case, go to "Class Actions," above.