1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: CENTURYLINK SALES
PRACTICES AND SECURITIES
LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 17-md-2795
(MJD/KMM)
Courtroom 13E
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
9:38 a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SENIOR JUDGE
MOTIONS HEARING ON DOCKET NOS. 330, 332, 342
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
Official Court Reporter - United States District Court
1005 United States Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
(612)664-5107
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography;
transcript produced by computer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs Sona
Andresian, Glen Walker
and Michael Barbree:
PERRY & PERRY PLLP
SHAWN M. PERRY, ESQ.
1660 Highway 100 South, #335
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
THOMAS J. McKENNA, ESQ.
440 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10016
For the Proposed Lead
or Co-Lead Counsel for
Shareholder Derivative
Plaintiffs:
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
WILLIAM B. FEDERMAN, ESQ.
10205 North Pennsylvania
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120
For the Plaintiff
Edward Tansey:
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
GARRETT D. BLANCHFIELD, ESQ.
322 Minnesota Street, #W1050
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
GEORGE C. AGUILAR, ESQ.
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
For the Plaintiff Tim
Ault:
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
LAWRENCE P. EAGEL, ESQ.
885 Third Avenue, #3040
New York, New York 10022
LEVENTHAL PLLC
SETH LEVENTHAL, ESQ.
333 South Seventh Street, #1150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
For the Defendant: WINTHROP & WEINSTINE PA
WILLIAM A. McNAB, ESQ.
225 South Sixth Street, #3500
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
COOLEY LLP
SARAH M. LIGHTDALE, ESQ.
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-7798
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
3
APPEARANCES (contd):
For the Defendant
(continued):
COOLEY LLP
PATRICK E. GIBBS, ESQ.
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
For the Amicus Curiae: MICHAEL HARTLEIB, PRO SE
20720 Alicia Parkway, Ste. G
Laguna Niguel, California 92677
* * *
P R O C E E D I N G S
IN OPEN COURT
* * *
THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.
Let's call this matter, these matters.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: In Re: CenturyLink Residential
Customer Billing Disputes Litigation, MDL No. 17-2795.
Counsel, please state your appearances for the
record.
MR. AGUILAR: Good morning, Your Honor. George
Aguilar from the law firm of Robbins Arroyo for plaintiff
Edward Tansey.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. BLANCHFIELD: Good morning, Your Honor.
Garrett Blanchfield from Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
also on behalf of plaintiff Edward Tansey.
THE COURT: Good morning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
4
MR. EAGEL: Good morning, Your Honor. Lawrence
Eagel, Bragar Eagel & Squire, for plaintiff Tim Ault. With
me is Seth Leventhal for plaintiff Tim Ault.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. FEDERMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. William
B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, on behalf of plaintiff
Inter-Marketing Group.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Your Honor. Shawn
Perry. I am local counsel from Perry & Perry on behalf of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston. T.J. McKenna or Thomas J.
McKenna is to my right.
MR. MCKENNA: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MCNAB: Good morning, Judge Davis. Bill
McNab, Winthrop & Weinstine, on behalf of defendant
CenturyLink and the individual director defendants.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. GIBBS: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick
Gibbs from Cooley also for defendants.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. LIGHTDALE: Good morning, Your Honor. Sarah
Lightdale from Cooley also for the defendants.
THE COURT: Good morning.
Would you call the other matter too?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
5
COURTROOM DEPUTY: The Tansey?
THE COURT: Did they give you a number on it?
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Did they give you a number on it?
(Off-record discussion between court and courtroom deputy.)
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Tansey versus Perry, et al.,
Civil Case No. 18-cv-2460.
THE COURT: All right. Counsel late yesterday
received a motion from Mr. Hartlieb. I don't believe he's
here. I think you all know him or some of you know him.
MR. BLANCHFIELD: I don't see him in the
courtroom.
THE COURT: All right. So we will just put that
till the end. So let's begin with our motions that are
before us.
Who wants to proceed?
MR. AGUILAR: I can go first, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. AGUILAR: Would you like me at the podium,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: Oh, most definitely.
MR. AGUILAR: Thank you, Your Honor. George
Aguilar, again, with Robbins Arroyo on behalf of plaintiff
Tansey. We've made an application to be appointed lead
counsel in the matter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
6
Your Honor, we think the three most critical
factors in the court's discretion in appointing lead counsel
are to look at the experience and knowledge of the proposed
lead counsel and his firm, the record of success by that
firm and the resources that firm can bring to bear, and we
believe we compare favorably on all three points. Our firm
has been a derivative litigation focused firm for over ten
years. We bring a vast number of lawyers and experience --
THE COURT: You talk about the numbers of lawyers
that are in your firm, but I need to know who is going to be
running this.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I am going to be running this,
the litigation, as the lead litigation partner. Steve
Wedeking will be, an associate in the firm, and Ashley
Rifkin, also a partner at the firm, will also be assisting
in the litigation. And we will have other resources to bear
as they are required and especially with respect to the
discovery that may be propounded in the case.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. AGUILAR: Our record of success is focused on
the derivative litigation. As we lay out in our papers, the
success we have had in bringing necessary corporate reforms
where needed and to obtain financial recoveries on behalf of
the company and other shareholders are in the context of
derivative litigation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
7
We do have a diversity practice within our firm.
Myself, a former criminal prosecutor, also active in the
antitrust practice, but primarily in the derivative space.
We have other lawyers active in the 10(b) space, class
action space. Ms. Rifkin has been focused on the derivative
angle for a number of years and as has Mr. Wedeking.
And then, lastly, Your Honor, I can address the
Hartlieb thing when it gets brought up, but we have never
been denied a lead counsel as a result of any of these types
of allegations that have been brought forward. In fact,
they have been brought by Mr. Hartlieb once before.
THE COURT: Well, let's not talk about that right
now. He's not here and --
MR. AGUILAR: Very well.
THE COURT: But I do need you to talk to me about
your plaintiff.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Mr. Tansey has been a
stockholder of the company since 2003. He is a minor
stockholder who owns 13 shares, but, nonetheless, a
long-term holder, selling as the market would require, and
he currently holds 13 shares of the corporation.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else you wish to
bring forth at this time?
MR. AGUILAR: Unless the court has some questions.
THE COURT: Not at this time. We will hear from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
8
everyone and then we will go -- I may have another round.
Who is next?
Let me -- no. Come on back up.
MR. AGUILAR: Sure.
THE COURT: I need -- as you well know, I have
handled a number of MDLs, and one of the things that is very
important for me is coordination and cooperation, and you
didn't talk about that with the other firms that are
involved in this. So I need to know, Did you meet and
confer? What is your --
MR. AGUILAR: We did.
THE COURT: Have you had problems with -- in one
of the MDLs I had many, many years ago I didn't find out
that there were lawsuits between the lawyers in another MDL.
Everyone was quiet about it, because they wanted to get it
appointed. And then once they got it, I'd made my
appointment, then I found out that there was lawsuits
between two of the lawyers and that caused a lot of
problems, so --
MR. AGUILAR: No. We certainly don't have any of
those issues with any of the other firms.
We did have discussions with a member of the firm
that makes up the Bragar firm. There were discussions in
earnest to try to resolve a leadership or put together a
leadership structure. It was our view that what was being
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
9
proposed, that we were being asked to be a part of, was just
too large, too diffuse. It didn't really have a focus or a
sharpness that would allow the litigation to proceed
efficiently. I have had recent discussions with
Mr. Federman and again along the same lines.
I believe for a case like this in an MDL
proceeding, which is already going to be fairly coordinated
and consolidated and managed by the court, we just thought
it was important that the top of the leadership structure be
as efficient and focused as possible. So that's why we
proposed just a one-firm leadership structure at the top.
We do have experienced Minnesota counsel in
Reinhardt Wendorf in the representative litigation aspect.
But if we are appointed lead counsel, obviously, the first
thing we would do would be to consolidate the cases, put
together a consolidated complaint. We would encourage and
ask the other plaintiffs to join in the case, and they
would, the other firms, would have an opportunity to
participate in the litigation, if their client decides to
partake in the case. It would be -- you know, we are
dealing and up against very experienced and excellent
defense counsel, so there will be a need for significant
resources in this case, and we will be more than happy to
bring the other firms along. We just thought at the very
top and there should be a very sparse and focused structure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
10
at the top, and that's what we propose.
THE COURT: Well, other than having a king at the
top or a queen at the top, what's your management structure?
What are you proposing?
MR. AGUILAR: No formal committee structure. It
would involve, again, based on the participation of the
plaintiffs, other plaintiffs in this case, a doling out of
work as it becomes available in the case, probably initially
not at the pleading stage. That will be work that will be
handled by our firm and the Reinhardt firm. But once we get
to discovery, if we are able to do that, there will be a
significant amount of work to be done in that arena, and we
would propose to have other counsel involved in that case,
to the extent that they are willing to or have the resources
at the time to do so. We just believe that the management
of the practice -- the management of the case should
generate and originate from the focused leadership.
THE COURT: What's your position dealing with the
other MDL that's involved here, the consumer side?
MR. AGUILAR: We would certainly -- those cases
are progressing. We would reach and make contact with lead
counsel on the plaintiffs' side for those actions. We would
be particularly interested in the 10(b) action that's
proceeding, the securities part of the MDL. There may be
some issues in common with this case that we'll certainly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
11
work with the defense counsel and perhaps establishing an
efficient way to resolve those types of issues in
conjunction with what's already occurred in the securities
case and what's being proposed to occur in the securities
case.
THE COURT: Now, you've indicated that you have
been involved in a number -- that your firm is a derivative
lawsuit firm. Have you had other cases that you can cite to
me that you have dealt with the consumer side and it's
worked well and --
MR. AGUILAR: Yeah, not so much on the derivative
MDL side. I am currently part of an antitrust MDL as lead
counsel in one of the cases, antitrust cases that does have
a significant component with consumer -- with the consumer
cases, and we have been in very open and constant contact
with those lawyers. It's the Interchange MDL case and the
Credit Card antitrust action in the Eastern District of New
York.
We're currently serving as associate counsel in a
consumer class action involving pharmacies and their
payments of certain usual and customary prices with respect
to the pharmacy benefit managers, and we have been working
in close contact with the consumer lawyers in that
particular instance.
So I don't anticipate any issues at all with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
12
respect to our ability to cooperate and coordination with
any of those cases, with any of the cases that are currently
making up the MDL, and that would involve certainly
discovery, where we do think there probably will be a
significant amount of overlap in terms of the documents and
the discovery that's produced and would proceed and want to
do it in the most efficient way possible.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
You have given me a list of cases where you were
either lead counsel or co-lead counsel, but you never
mentioned who the judges were.
No? None?
(Off-record discussion between court and clerk.)
THE COURT: You gave me the name of the cases, but
you didn't give me the name of the judges, which is --
MR. AGUILAR: Sure. In our pleading, Your Honor,
in our briefing, we did list -- I think it's a page and a
half and attached the transcripts of the judges who have
commented on our work, and that would include, for example,
District Court Judge Kinkeade in the Northern District of
Texas. And we certainly can match those judges up with the
cases we mentioned in the early part of the brief. So we do
have a listing of the judges who have proposed and stated on
the record complimentary things of the way we litigated the
case and the results that we have achieved. And I certainly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
13
have no --
THE COURT: I am sure that's at the end of the
case when you, when it's --
MR. AGUILAR: Right, right.
THE COURT: I'm just teasing you.
MR. AGUILAR: Yeah. No, no, that's -- that's --
THE COURT: I have done that many times.
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
THE COURT: So, no, I've just -- time flies. I
have been -- soon I will be -- this is my 25th year as a
federal judge, and so I know a number of the judges and
especially on the MDL side. So I just wanted to make sure
that I got all the names; and so if I wanted to make a quick
call, I could do that.
MR. AGUILAR: Certainly, Your Honor.
And to the extent that the cases that we cite in
our brief and in our resume aren't reflected in the comments
made by the judges that are within our brief, I certainly
can provide a correspondence to your court listing those
judges.
THE COURT: Please. Make it easy for me.
MR. AGUILAR: I will do so.
THE COURT: I am senior status now.
MR. AGUILAR: I will do that.
THE COURT: I am just teasing you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
14
MR. AGUILAR: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else you --
MR. AGUILAR: Not unless the court has additional
questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. We may have a second
round, so --
All right. Who is next? Good morning.
MR. EAGEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
I've prepared a little graph I thought would maybe
be helpful to the court. Can I approach and just hand --
THE COURT: Please. Have you given it to all
counsel? I need one for my law clerk too. Okay. Good.
MR. EAGEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. EAGEL: May it please the court. Lawrence
Eagel, Bragar Eagel & Squire. We are here this morning
seeking the appointment of our client Tim Ault as lead
plaintiff and our firm as lead counsel.
First, with respect to the appointment of our
client as lead plaintiff, Tim Ault has been a long-time
shareholder of CenturyLink. He's owned shares since 1999.
We have disclosed he has 235 shares. He's submitted an
affidavit saying that he's committed to prosecuting the
action and supervising counsel or at least being a part of
the process. So I think he's -- he is probably the most
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
15
qualified plaintiff of all of the plaintiffs, and I will
describe why in a few minutes.
THE COURT: What's his background? Why would he
want to take on that?
MR. EAGEL: I believe he's an -- he's an
investment advisor, I mean, a skilled investor. I'm not
sure he's an investment advisor. And I don't have more
information for you. I wish I did, but I don't have more
information. I have -- others in my office have been more
in touch with him. And I apologize that I don't have more
information, but what I understand is he's an experienced
investor and I understand he's interested in the case and
willing to participate in the case and wants to participate
in the case.
So let me speak a little bit about the reasons why
our firm should be appointed lead counsel in this case.
Well, first, I would say, in terms of the lead
plaintiff as compared to Mr. Tansey, he has not submitted a
declaration saying that he will support his lead plaintiff
position. And as we point out with respect to IMG, which
is -- and there are a few reasons why we believe
Inter-Marketing Group is not a proper plaintiff, one of
which is that they're a corporation and as a result of being
a corporation I don't think they're a traditional, but they
refer to themselves as an institutional investor, but I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
16
think in reality they're a corporate investor, and as a
corporate investor they have their own fiduciary obligations
to their shareholders, and, therefore, a possibility is they
will be required -- they might sell their shares; and if
they do sell their shares, they are, in fact, will lose
standing. I think that's something the court sort of is
familiar with. So I think that was one reason, and I will
speak in a few minutes about the additional reasons and that
is the vigor with which we've pursued the case.
I think with this what's important, I think, Your
Honor, is in terms of the standing of or how the cases have
been prosecuted, our firm has been proactive and --
THE COURT: Let's back up.
MR. EAGEL: Okay.
THE COURT: My first question, Who is going to
lead the charge here from your firm?
MR. EAGEL: I will, Your Honor. I will be the
lead. I will be the lead attorney from -- and we can talk a
little bit about the resources of our firm, but I will be
the lead attorney from our firm handling litigation. With
me will be -- and I have been practicing litigation for
35 years, law for 35 years, I guess litigation probably most
of that time. A few years before that I was a certified
public accountant. I have spent the last 10, 15 years
focused more on derivative-type litigation representing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
17
shareholders in various types of derivative litigation.
We've -- and so that's been my experience.
I was involved in several of the cases that we
have identified for Your Honor. The Activision Blizzard
case was a case I was intimately involved with. It was our
client. We worked with other counsel and ultimately
succeeded in achieving a $275 million recovery on behalf of
the company, in fact, got a fee award of $72 million showing
that the court recognized the effort of counsel and the
unique effort of counsel. In another case -- I was also
involved in the El Paso trial case, a case tried before --
and in terms of the judges that were involved, the judges
that were involved in the Activision Blizzard case is a vice
chancellor -- Vice Chancellor Laster, Travis Laster from
Delaware. He's in the Court of Chancery in Delaware. Vice
Chancellor Laster also was the judge in the trial in the El
Paso litigation. The El Paso litigation was a derivative
case we tried through verdict and secured a verdict of -- in
that case a liability award of $171 million following a
finding of bad faith on behalf of the directors. In fact,
subsequent, sort of, at the close of the trial, the trial
court -- the company merged, El Paso merged with the
subsidiary, and ultimately our client lost standing. There
were posttrial proceedings involving our standing, and
ultimately the case on appeal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
18
THE COURT: Dismissed.
MR. EAGEL: Excuse me?
THE COURT: It was dismissed.
MR. EAGEL: Yes, on appeal. And that was as a
result of the loss of standing, having nothing to do with
the trial. And even in the Delaware Supreme Court decision
reversing the judgment that the vice chancellor had
instituted in the case, the Supreme Court said in this
difficult and troubling case we have to reverse because of
the loss of standing. But I think that's -- it's a lesson
we have learned in terms of what could happen if you don't
have control over the shares that you hold, because the same
result could happen if ultimately you sell the shares or the
shares are otherwise -- you are not in control of that,
whatever, for Inter-Marketing.
Another more recent case, Your Honor, is before,
also a derivative case, before Vice Chancellor Slights in
the Delaware Chancery Court in which we have -- we're
representing a shareholder in a suit on behalf of Enbridge
Energy Company. The suit was ultimately -- recently
Enbridge announced a merger, a roll-up of its subsidiary. I
have unique expertise in master limited partnership
litigation. And as a result of the roll-up, as a result of
the transaction, there were merger negotiations between
Enbridge Energy, Inc., Enbridge, Inc., and the master
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
19
limited partnership. We interjected ourselves into those
negotiations seeking to have the committee that was
appointed value the derivative claim. The committee that
was appointed valued the derivative claim at close to a
hundred million dollars, used that value in its negotiations
with Enbridge, Inc., and ultimately there was an increase in
the -- in the exchange ratio from about 3083 to about 3.33.
Ultimately, that case, as a result of the closing of the
merger, the case was dismissed to avoid a fee application by
our firms. We negotiated a fee of 14 and a half million
dollars with the defendants on the case.
So we have achieved, I think, success. We have
achieved success recently, and we've achieved success in
derivative cases.
In terms of -- I know I can -- I can continue. I
kind of -- in terms of the consumer cases, I know Your Honor
mentioned consumer cases. These cases have not
traditionally been consumer cases that I have just referred
to. We have been in consumer cases, but not within a
derivative context that I can recall. The derivative cases
ordinarily involved, sort of, the conduct of the board of
directors and their, sort of, obligations to monitor the
activities. I also --
THE COURT: The only reason I mention it is
because I have -- I have these two MDLs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
20
MR. EAGEL: Yeah, understood.
THE COURT: And the --
MR. EAGEL: Understood.
THE COURT: -- same issues. And so I want to see
if you've had that type of experience.
MR. EAGEL: Well, our firm actually did represent
a class of -- this is actually a class of purchasers of
Camel Cash cigarettes. We ultimately entered into a
resolution, but this involved what were called C-Notes for
Camel Cash cigarettes. For years in California and
throughout the country there was -- there were these C-Notes
that were much like -- I don't know if you remember Plaid
Stamps back in the day. The C-Notes they would -- people
would buy packs of cigarettes, get C-Notes, be encouraged to
collect the C-Notes. Ultimately, R.J. Reynolds terminated
the program without notice, and we --
THE COURT: Do you really want to talk about that
and your attorney fees that were cut?
MR. EAGEL: No. I really just wanted to tell
you that -- I'm sorry. I wanted to just tell you that it
was one of the cases we had. It was a consumer case, and
the attorneys fees is -- it's more, sort of, just that we've
had some consumer experience. That's all. Yes, we have
succeeded in obtaining attorneys fees, but that really was
more so -- I was trying to really just touch on the consumer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
21
experience.
I think in terms of Your Honor's questions
regarding our ability to interact with other counsel and as
well as counsel for the defendants and counsel in the other
cases, I think that we have had experience in all of those
areas.
I think, first, with respect to counsel in the
other securities cases, we have worked with counsel and
throughout the country in a number of different securities
cases. I do think there would be some overlap through
discovery. There might be depositions, since some of the
issues are related as it relates to the disclosure claims,
that while they touch on similar issues that might require
coordinated discovery, coordinated deposition, coordinated
document discovery.
I think in terms of -- excuse me -- in terms of
coordination -- and I guess I spoke a little bit about
myself. I didn't get to tell you anybody else who is going
to be on the case. I would be on the case, leading the
case. In addition, our firm would have David Stone. He's
been with us for about, I would say, close to eight or
nine years, and he would -- he's practicing law for about
25 years. He will also be involved. Melissa Fortunato has
been with us. She submitted the affidavits. She will work
for about -- she's been out about six years. She will be on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
22
the case. I think we have Todd Henderson, who is also a
more junior lawyer. He will be on the case. I expect that
one of the things we're prepared to do is to devote the
resources that's necessary to prosecute the case.
We've also, as Your Honor knows, been supported in
leadership in this case by both the Johnson Fistel firm and
the Weiser firm. Okay. We are not seeking lead on their
behalf, but we are supported by them. And they have in
fact -- and part of --
I know Your Honor asked about, well, any
leadership, how would we envision leadership amongst the
group of attorneys here. We were not able to come to an
agreement amongst the attorneys here as to how -- a
leadership structure. Often that involves who is going to
lead the charge, often involves economics, and certainly is
something I think that we concluded that we felt we could.
We had -- we had the right theory. We had the right client.
We felt we were committed to pursuing the case. We were
supported by Johnson Fistel and have nothing negative to say
about the other attorneys here, frankly. It is not that the
attorneys here are bad attorneys. It's just we had to
just -- we think these cases are effectively managed when
run by lead counsel who is sort of taking charge, running
the show, and not necessarily splitting authority amongst
ten or, you know, five or six different firms. It just
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
23
happens. And that was what we were planning. We did feel
like we had support from the Johnson Fistel firm and the
other firm as well.
And I think that's really why we are here. We
just didn't reach an agreement. I know other counsel will
say they all reached out to try to come to some agreement.
I think we were prepared to try to come to some agreement,
but I think economics as well as just the desire to lead the
case and desire to be the one making the decisions was part
of what led us to where we are.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. EAGEL: I think in terms of --
(Mr. Hartlieb entered the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Mr. Hartlieb?
MR. HARTLIEB: Here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Welcome. We will get to you. I just
assumed that, that you were you. And so just have a seat.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: And we will get to you in a little
bit.
I am sorry, counsel. Go ahead.
MR. EAGEL: So I did want to just talk a little
bit about why we think, in addition to Mr. Ault, our firm is
the proper, sort of, selection in this case. It's a
close -- it's a close question, and I am here trying to tell
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
24
you that I think we will do the best job. We will work hard
at it.
We filed -- as you can see from this little
schedule, one of the things it does say is we made a demand
in September 2017, the first demand made by anybody in the
case. We also have a long-time shareholder.
I think one of the things we have -- and I think
Your Honor may have asked a little bit about Mr. Tansey.
Again, he didn't submit an affidavit. And one of the things
that we did point out in our briefing was the fact that, in
fact, he filed --
THE COURT: District of Minnesota.
MR. EAGEL: Yeah, which is a district that doesn't
have personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this case
or, in fact, it's -- you know, you would have to ask -- ask
Tansey why they would file in the District of Minnesota,
other than we understand there was an MDL here, but you've
got to have jurisdiction, and I don't believe there's
jurisdiction under the Bristol-Myers case we cited and
discussed in our brief. We think that's an opportunity for
the defendants to raise another issue in support of their
motion to dismiss that shouldn't be before us.
We do expect much of the discovery to occur in
Louisiana. We have, you know, we will be --
THE COURT: It's warmer here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
25
MR. EAGEL: Well, I don't know about that. I have
a feeling defendants may say differently, but I think that's
where a lot of the discovery will be.
Let me talk a little bit about the Inter-Marketing
Group. I mentioned the fact that they had -- they were a
corporation and that they were -- that there's a risk of
selling the shares. And I think -- I think Your Honor knows
that the Inter-Marketing Group originally moved to be lead
as in connection with their bondholder case. They pursued
that, and this was sort of the backstop, sort of, let's go
the second route. And as you can see from the chart here,
they didn't actually file the demand until 2018. And so
that's over a year after we made the demand to the special
litigation committee. And they didn't file their complaint
until December 26, 2018.
So while I think they are all fine lawyers, I
think we've showed through the way we have prosecuted the
case that we have prosecuted properly, you know, and that we
have the resources to lead the case.
THE COURT: Appreciate it.
MR. EAGEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Good morning.
MR. FEDERMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. William
B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, on behalf of the IMG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
26
Group.
If I may, Your Honor, I'll address any questions
you have; otherwise, I would like to respond, if I might, to
some of the comments by other counsel.
The Bragar Law Firm I am not familiar with,
although I was told they played a role in one or two of my
other shareholder derivative cases. By reputation, they
seem like a good firm. The only problem, if there is one,
with the Bragar firm is I couldn't get a phone call returned
or an email responded to. I had to call Mike Fistel, one of
their supporting lawyers, twice, Your Honor, to have someone
from their law firm return my call. I don't know why that
is, but that's not a good way to present yourself, as you
know, if you are going to be a lead counsel.
In the briefing filed by the Bragar firm,
Document 343 at page 15 of 17, they note that they did not
reach out to me or my firm to try to work anything out here.
I did repeatedly try to get them to the table to talk about
a structure here. I finally got a phone call. I made a
proposal. They were going to get back to me, which they did
not do.
Mr. Aguilar and I have known each other for a long
time. We have had plenty of cases together, which, frankly,
surprises me in their pleadings, Your Honor, on
Document 358, page 6 and 7, they say that they are not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
27
familiar with the results of any of our cases, which is odd.
It may have been the same associate who filed in the wrong
jurisdiction.
I was co-counsel with the Robbins firm in Cell
Therapeutics in the Western District of Washington, Your
Honor.
I worked closely in the Dynavax case, Alameda
County, California, where they filed in federal court, I
filed in state court. We worked closely. I presented the
settlement. We had an objector. The settlement was
sustained. They asked me to make the presentation.
In the case of Hemispherx, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, we were co-counsel.
In the Spectrum lawsuit, Clark County, Nevada,
they filed in state court, I filed in federal court. They
asked me, Your Honor, to make an appearance on behalf of
their client in state court to present the settlement for
approval to the court.
And then there's the SandRidge Energy case,
Western District of Oklahoma, that Mr. Aguilar is very
familiar with. I was part of the leadership structure of
that case before Judge Lee R. West, one of the finest
federal trial judges on the bench, now senior status.
Mr. Aguilar filed in state court where he was stayed after
initial activity. He then pursued nothing other than his
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
28
fee application before the Western District of Oklahoma,
where he lost and the judge poured him out. He then took it
up on appeal to get his fee. And I spoke to him. I asked
him if he wanted me to intercede on his behalf. He said no.
And he wound up losing, getting no fee in the case, even
though he did provide services in the case.
So to come to the court and now say we don't know
anything about the Federman firm just smacks of lack of
candor. I would look forward to working with these counsel.
T.J. McKenna. Your Honor, his firm was part of
the Spectrum group of law firms. He and I are co-counsel in
the case. It's a small bar when you get into this practice
area.
Now, if you say, well, Mr. Federman, what
distinguishes you and your firm from these other lawsuits, I
would say, first and foremost, I will be the first person
standing for the plaintiffs at trial and I will be the last
to sit for the plaintiffs at trial. I will be working with
other lawyers within my firm, particularly Sara Collier, who
George knows very, very well. She has done nothing but --
THE COURT: Please, no first names. Please. No
first names.
MR. FEDERMAN: Ms. Collier.
THE COURT: No first names.
MR. FEDERMAN: Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Aguilar.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
29
THE COURT: Thanks.
MR. FEDERMAN: Excuse me.
Sara Collier from my firm has been practicing
shareholder derivative litigation exclusively for 13 years.
She's worked very, very closely with numerous attorneys at
the Robbins Arroyo Law Firm.
If you say, well, Mr. Federman, what concerns do
you have? Well, obviously, his client having 13 shares, and
I think I heard that right, is somewhat of a concern. And I
understand now why he sought for only lawyers to be
appointed and not a client, but that doesn't matter to me.
They're a good law firm. I would welcome them in part of a
structure. Having multiple partners billing to the case may
or may not be necessary. That's something that Mr. Aguilar
and I could discuss.
As far as the Bragar Law Firm goes --
THE COURT: Why don't you tell me, after I denied
a motion, it took you six months to file.
MR. FEDERMAN: Your Honor, there, frankly, was no
rush to file. They talk about the vigor in pursuing the
case, but in fact nothing has happened to this case other
than more facts have come out. A shareholder derivative
case is not like a class action. It's not the first to
file. Inter-Marketing Group, which they say did not pursue
with vigor, is in the exact same spot, except with a better
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
30
drafted complaint than the Bragar Law Firm, because we had
more facts on which to base the complaint. There was no
reason to file early other than to stand in front of the
court and say we filed first. I am sure if they file enough
derivative cases that they were filed third or fourth in
order. Robbins Arroyo has filed six, seven months after
other law firms in some of my cases, and I have welcomed
them into the structure. I spoke to Mr. Aguilar in the
hallway again, after having reached out to him earlier, and
said do you want to work something out here. And he said
no. So, you know, I will work with him.
Now, you asked about the differences. MDL
experience, Your Honor. I think in this group I am the only
one who has been lead counsel in multiple MDL consumer
cases. Judge Gwin in the Northern District of Ohio
appointed me over the Sonic data breach case as the sole
lead counsel with seven PSC members from around the country,
including New York counsel, Louisiana, South Carolina. It's
a good diverse group. And I'm lead in that case. The
Samsung washing case, Your Honor, is a massive case. We
have counsel from around the country on the PSC. Judge
DeGiusti in the Western District of Oklahoma. I am co-lead
counsel with a Lieff Cabraser case.
I have reached out to the consumer part of this
case in the MDL because I think particularly the arbitration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
31
issue is important to the derivative case, because if it's
forced into arbitration, we lose access to a great deal of
discovery. And I know Mr. Bragar discussed how they will
coordinate depositions and we could attend them, but if
there are no depositions, it becomes a bigger issue. So we
have reached out to those attorneys. We have reached out to
the class action counsel. I know Max Berger very well.
But, Your Honor, where it comes down is I'll work
with these other firms. We will efficiently handle this
case. If you say, well, what's the advantage of being in
the central part of the United States? Cost of doing
business, Your Honor. Our billing rates are very
competitive. I have got a specialist in Ms. Sara Collier,
who they have worked with. T.J. -- excuse me. Mr. McKenna
speaks with her periodically. We're co-counsel on a case
now. I think all these firms have had good results in
cases. I am not going to say otherwise.
Mr. Bragar's law firm has a client who literally
has less than a one percent investment position compared to
IMG in this case. There is no commitment by any other
plaintiff to hold stock throughout this proceeding. As
Mr. Bragar discussed with you, his client could lose
standing at any time. A 13 shareholder? A 13-share
shareholder could sell at any time. Mr. Bragar's client
with less than 300 shares could decide to sell at any time.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
32
IMG, who he criticizes for some perceived lack of standing,
where all he had to do was call me, just give me a call, I'm
available, and say, Bill, is there a -- or, Mr. Federman, is
there an investment policy for IMG that will cause this
company to sell? And I would have said no, there is none.
Instead, he makes a fanciful argument, which has no basis.
And as the court knows, for a trial attorney, candor,
accuracy and evidentiary value matters.
So here we stand, Your Honor, in front of you
ready to serve in a capacity of either lead counsel with a
three-member executive committee or I will be co-counsel and
gladly do that.
As far as resources, we have dropped from 18
attorneys at the Robbins Arroyo firm to some number of
multiple partners and an associate.
Your Honor, we just resolved the case in front of
Judge Consuelo Marshall in the Central District of
California, a very fine judge. It took five years to do it.
We had a trip to Pasadena to the Ninth Circuit. Sullivan &
Cromwell was on defense. And the case was resolved
favorably for the plaintiffs, a $13 million recovery. Fees
were awarded at 28 percent, which is above the benchmark of
the Ninth Circuit, as you may be aware. We had an
institutional client there, who was a corporation. Every
institutional client, Your Honor, is either a trust or a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
33
corporation. That's why they're an institutional client.
So if you would like to call a judge that knows my firm and
the quality of work we do, Judge Marshall would be a perfect
one. She approved the settlement last week.
That also frees up both resources, i.e., cash, as
well as attorney time. We are committed to this case.
Ms. Collier will be on this case nearly exclusively. This
is a big case. There are a lot of moving parts in it with
the investigation by the AG. It's a large board.
I would welcome the assistance of these other law
firms, if they want to continue to participate. I look
forward to working with the Bragar firm. I have no issue
other than admiration for Mr. McKenna, who has been my
co-counsel. He returns calls. He responds. He does his
work on time. It doesn't take that much to work
cooperatively. And we have shown we do that in other cases
in MDLs, and that's why we have been selected. I am not a
jack of all trades. We restrict our practice to certain
areas, and those areas are shareholder derivative cases,
securities class actions and consumer cases.
I have over the years practiced in other areas.
I'm right now co-counsel in a police shooting case out of
Bixby, Oklahoma, where a police officer lit up a 16-year-old
boy and killed him with eight shots, and I am assisting a
lawyer who came to me for financial backing and assistance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
34
in complexity of his case. I am glad to help other
attorneys. And that's how I'd approach this case, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. FEDERMAN: Do you have any questions?
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. FEDERMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. MCKENNA: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MCKENNA: Thomas J. McKenna. I represent
three individuals who are stockholders of the company.
Thank you for having us here today.
These lead plaintiff contests always make me
nervous too because arguments are made that could only help
the defense.
I reached out to all the firms here -- I am
familiar with all the firms; I have worked with all the
firms -- to see if we could make a structure. We were not
successful. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
I have worked with Mr. Federman, as he's told you,
many times. And when I saw his papers that he represented
an institution, a corporation that holds 2,600 shares, that
the man has submitted a sworn statement that he will not
sell, because standing is a problem -- I have a case in
Chicago where my client promised me they were never going to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
35
sell and had no intention of selling, then they sold. I had
to drop him out of the case. So I'm aware of those
problems, as well as probably happened to everyone. So that
impressed me, a sworn statement of a corporation they're
going to hold the shares. So I agreed to pull back and
support Mr. Federman in whatever way he needs.
My local counsel, Mr. Perry, has worked with me on
a number of cases in this district. We have been before
Judge Schiltz a few times. We have been before Judge
Ericksen. We have been before Judge Tunheim and Judge Doty.
He also is prepared to be liaison counsel, if Your Honor
thinks that's appropriate, and he will serve under
Mr. Federman as well.
So I would just say one other thing too, you know,
not -- no one has all the answers, and often the best
answers come from collaboration. I had a law professor who
gave us a take-home test. The class was divided in two.
The other kids took their test with their professor in
class. We got the take-home. They were up in arms. They
thought it was easy. It was the hardest test I ever took.
And we sat in my living room, like six of us, and we came up
with, you know, decent answers, but by ourselves we had no
chance on that test because it was just too deep. There
were too many levels. And I learned from my professor that
the best -- the best answers come from collaboration, and I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
36
would like to see that happen here, judge.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Anyone else?
MR. EAGEL: Your Honor, just one thing. I just
wanted to say, one, I'm Mr. Eagel. I know that --
THE COURT: I can't hear you. Come to the podium.
MR. EAGEL: Just, one, I really did just want to
say, one, I'm Mr. Eagel as opposed to Mr. Bragar. I think I
was referred to as Mr. Bragar a few times. I didn't want
there to be any misunderstanding from Mr. Federman.
And, two, I did want to make sure that the court
was aware it's not that we've never worked with anybody or
unwilling to work with other people. We couldn't reach an
agreement based on the parameters that were being discussed
at the time. We have worked with counsel many times. I
have -- don't have bad words to say about the people that
are here. They have all been good lawyers, and they have
spoken well. It's we have -- in terms of communications,
there were communications that were being made by other
attorneys to Mr. Federman. There were communications -- if
there was a breakdown, it could have been because of some
desire as to who was -- discussions with Robbins Arroyo. I
mean, the discussions that occurred, we just couldn't reach
an agreement, but there's no desire not to reach an
agreement or not to work with people. We have worked
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
37
consistently with other firms and would continue to do so.
I just wanted to make sure that was clear, Your Honor.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. AGUILAR: One last thing, Your Honor. I am
sorry. I just wanted to -- my co-counsel --
THE COURT: Well, you have to respond to -- I
think someone said some associate misfiled the case in
Minnesota.
MR. AGUILAR: That wasn't us.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. AGUILAR: No, we did not misfile. We did file
in Minnesota. It wasn't misfiled.
THE COURT: Well, and you didn't -- maybe I didn't
say it right. Counsel said that -- he was taking a dig at
your firm.
MR. AGUILAR: Yeah.
THE COURT: It's that you don't know what you are
doing.
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
THE COURT: And that you had an associate file it
in Minnesota.
MR. AGUILAR: That's not the case.
THE COURT: And so you are going to have to
respond to that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
38
MR. AGUILAR: Sure.
At the moment there is no finding with respect to
jurisdiction on any of the cases, personal, general,
specific. So that's not to say we couldn't establish
jurisdiction with the currently pending complaint. However,
in the end in an MDL we are going to consolidate the cases
and have plaintiffs who had filed in Louisiana, filed in
Minnesota, and so it becomes a moot case, because if you
don't have jurisdiction as alleged by one of the plaintiffs,
there's another plaintiff who had alleged previously
Louisiana jurisdiction and that might arise and provide the
jurisdiction in this case. So in an MDL that's not as
critical as you would -- as it would be in a stand-alone
litigation.
So I don't believe we've misfiled. I approved the
filing. It was here in Minnesota. It's entirely possible
we can establish Minnesota jurisdiction here, but it's also
possible in an MDL we would be able to establish
jurisdiction through the filing of the Louisiana cases. So
I think it's a lot less important in this context than it
may be otherwise.
And then, secondly, I just wanted to point out, as
my local counsel reminded me, we were involved as co-lead
counsel in the derivative case against Target in the data
breach cases. That had an MDL, that was an MDL, and had a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
39
consumer case component, and Judge Magnuson presided. So if
you wanted to talk to him, that would be perfectly
appropriate.
And that's all I have.
THE COURT: Anyone else?
MR. MCKENNA: No, judge.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on to the other
case, let's recall it, that was just dealing with
Mr. Hartlieb. Let's call that again.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Tansey versus Perry, et al.,
Case No. 18-cv-2460.
THE COURT: Mr. Hartlieb, come forward.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. HARTLIEB: Good morning.
I would just like to say that I apologize to the
court for being late. I was up bright and early and ready
to go, had breakfast, went to put a suit on, had no dress
shirt, ran to Nordstrom Rack, pounded on the door, got them
to open five minutes early, got the dress shirt. And let's
just say one wrong turn in the skyway and you are in serious
trouble, especially a California guy.
THE COURT: So you were in St. Paul? No. I
understand. Don't worry about that.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
40
Does Your Honor have any questions?
THE COURT: I travel quite a bit and --
MR. HARTLIEB: It was a rookie mistake.
THE COURT: No. It's amazing how many times I've
forgotten a tie.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So I understand, yes.
MR. HARTLIEB: Does Your Honor have any questions
for me or -- okay.
THE COURT: No. Proceed with what you want.
MR. HARTLIEB: Okay. As Your Honor knows, in the
amicus brief I lay things out that shows a pattern, a course
of conduct over many years. I, as a shareholder, have had
to defend my interests against the likes of Robbins Arroyo
and more recently the Weiser Law Firm.
I am now in litigation with the Weiser Law Firm
because of the chicanery that transpired in the Kansas
court. That case went all the way up to the Kansas Supreme
Court. We had oral arguments at the Kansas Supreme Court.
They were admonished, although there is no transcript of
that hearing, which I am very dismayed over.
And, also, I think that the Robbins firm and I
believe, you know, Weiser as well, but especially the
Robbins firm, given the long history I have had having to
defend my interests against those cases that were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
41
lawyer-driven, plaintiffs that had no shares, no standing
whatsoever, representing -- I had 8, $900,000 in losses in
Sirius. So the way I have gotten involved in this is I see
someone that falsely purports to represent the shareholders'
interests or the corporation, the shareholders derivatively,
and then I see no meaningful relief or nearly illusory
relief and a tremendous amount in attorneys fees. And in
the Kansas case, I mean, I was subjected, I was -- my
character -- I mean, I ended up having to defend my
character, and I wasn't the one that did anything wrong.
You know, I mean, it's unbelievable the attacks that I took,
so -- but it does nothing to dissuade me. It just
galvanizes my convictions and strengthens my resolve.
I have been on a quest to expose this
lawyer-driven litigation and the strong-arm tactics of firms
like Robbins Arroyo. And I'll tell you, I think the reason
that they get away with it is because of who, you know, the
Robbins Geller firm is. I mean, they are a very prominent
firm. And I know many, many attorneys that are very unhappy
with what goes on at Robbins Arroyo, but they are afraid to
cross them. So I am the one that's out here. You know, I
am speaking my mind, because I have been a victim of them so
many times, and I intend to continue.
And with regard to the amicus brief, I didn't have
a full service, the notice, you know, who to serve everyone.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
42
And I understand that it could be prejudicial because they
haven't had a chance to respond, but I welcome a response.
That said, if the firms would like to give me a list of
their forthcoming cases in which they are seeking leave, I
could be certain to notify everybody timely and I wouldn't
have to prepare, stay up all night, all weekend long, to try
to draft an amicus brief and get it to the court and then,
you know, fly in.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else you wish to tell
me?
MR. HARTLIEB: I mean, basically, that's it in a
nutshell, Your Honor. I think that it's time that, you
know, the corruption that's rife throughout derivative
litigation needs to be cleaned up.
The other issue that I tread lightly on, but I
just don't understand why an esteemed federal court judge,
after fraud was committed in the case, he submitted a sworn
declaration affirming those fees. I don't understand how it
is that a mediator who is supposed to be, you know,
nonbiased -- I don't think it's proper for a mediator to
affirm fees, you know, whether just or unjust, in my
opinion, because it creates at least the illusion of a
conflict of interest.
And then it's -- I'm dismayed by the fact that
during the course of the Kansas case that, you know, Judge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
43
Phillips did not send a declaration retracting his support
for the fees because they were found to be completely
fraudulent, 1.6 million of which by a convicted felon and
disbarred attorney. And, Your Honor, I know for a fact that
the Weiser firm knew who Mr. Silow was and that will come
out, you know, during the course of litigation. And I am
pretty certain that the Robbins Arroyo firm knew who he was
as well.
These firms, when these firms are up to no good,
when they are billing illusory hours -- you know, if I had
30 minutes with Your Honor in chambers, I could give Your
Honor a lot more information with regard to Cardinal Health,
an attorney by the name of Colton, things that have happened
at the Robbins Arroyo firm that are extremely troubling,
extremely troubling.
So I ask Your Honor to consider like the Kansas
court did. I understand I am pro se. I understand I don't
have a legal background. But the Kansas court took my
allegations, you know, sincerely and gave me the opportunity
to prove what I alleged early on, that there was fraud being
committed in that case.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
44
THE COURT: Counsel, do you wish to be heard?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes, Your Honor.
Unfortunately, this is what Mr. Hartlieb does. He
has done this before. He filed the last-second pleading in
a case before the Delaware Chancery for which I had and my
firm had placed an application for lead counsel, again, last
second, last minute, all sorts of parade of horribles that
our firm supposedly committed. And at the time Chancellor
Strine, before his elevation to the Supreme Court, saw the
matter, heard the matter, he dismissed it and didn't take
into account any of the -- any of the allegations, any of
the pleadings. They were as fanciful as they are in this
instance, delusionary in many instances and certainly
libelous and slanderous. And he went ahead and appointed us
and me as lead counsel. We obtained a $68 million default
judgment in the case. We didn't apply for attorney fees and
won't until we are actually able to collect on the judgment.
But Mr. Hartlieb has no answer for the hundreds of cases
where we've successfully settled, where we have had
complimentary reviews by the judges involved.
The process by which these cases get resolved is
closely monitored by the court. There's a reason for that.
And in this particular instance, and specifically I am
talking about the Sprint instance, there was a settlement in
the case that the court approved as reasonable, fair and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
45
adequate to the company and its shareholders and to the
plaintiffs. The settlement was approved. The court had a
problem with the fee application, even though the fee
application was negotiated with the direct intervention of
the mediator, Judge Phillips, and we had declarations from
corporate governance experts who also vouched for the value
of the reforms involved. Now, again, and it's perfectly
appropriate, the judge in Kansas determined, you know, that
wasn't good enough, and he has asserted his discretion and
judgment and determined that there shouldn't be an
application for the fees at anywhere near the amount that we
applied for. We appealed that, lost that. We didn't --
there was no argument in front of the Kansas Supreme Court.
So, you know, the system worked. The process worked. The
court reviewed it. Everyone presented their arguments, and
the court ruled.
In the instance of the disbarred lawyer,
unfortunately, the Weiser firm had retained and vetted
somebody who purported to be an attorney, was a prominent
doc reviewer in the case, and all he did was review
documents. We didn't vet him. We didn't employ him. He
wasn't part of our sphere of lawyers working on the case.
And, unfortunately, it turned out he had misrepresented his
status. He was criminally prosecuted. He was -- and had
served a sentence for defrauding the court and defrauding
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
46
the public as a purported attorney. So, again, the process
worked.
And there's no, again, there's -- aside from the
matters that he brought before you in the pleading that he
lodged this morning, in which we received, again, late last
night by email, that doesn't account for the hundreds of
cases we have resolved successfully and had approved by the
court, through the court's own vigorous and careful scrutiny
over what had occurred in the case. And that's a record
that we stand on and is appropriately before Your Honor in
our application for lead counsel.
THE COURT: All right. I'll give you a week to
respond in writing. It will be the 13th of March.
MR. AGUILAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: By 12 noon.
All right. Anyone else wish to be heard on this
issue?
Mr. Hartlieb, do you want to have the last word
here?
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor.
You know, I may be a lot of things. Delusional is
not one of them. That being said, the court should also
take into consideration that Mr. Aguilar would like to blame
the Weiser firm for what transpired, but the Robbins Arroyo
firm was the one -- all the fraud was committed in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
47
fraudulent document review. Basically, the entire
$4.5 million was for document review that was illusory. All
of this was under Robbins Arroyo's supervision. They were
running the case behind the scenes. They negotiated the
case management, you know, agreement, and they were
controlling all of the document review.
The other thing is, I ask the court to consider
this. The allegations that I make against these firms are
very serious allegations. He says that I am libeling him,
slandering him and defaming the firm. I have asked
Mr. Aguilar on numerous occasions if they would like to sue
me, I will waive service.
I am perfectly happy for you -- if you want to
commence an action, then I will get the discovery --
THE COURT: Speak to me.
MR. HARTLIEB: Then I will get the discovery that
I need to finally put an end to this, all of this, you know,
unjust enrichment, you know, literally bastardizing our
judicial process.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HARTLIEB: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
All right. Anyone else wish to speak on any
issues? If not, I will take this matter under advisement.
MR. AGUILAR: Thank you, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR
(612)664-5107
48
MR. FEDERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.
(Court adjourned at 10:42 a.m., 03-06-2019.)
* * *
I, Renee A. Rogge, certify that the foregoing is a
correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the
above-entitled matter.
Certified by: /s/Renee A. Rogge
Renee A. Rogge, RMR-CRR
