In Re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80B
Relies on Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation · Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co. · Weinberger v. Kendrick · Suez Equity Investors Lp and Sei Associates v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Public policy also supports the approval of this fee request. The size of the recovery achieved for the class which has been praised even by several objectors-could not have been achieved without the unwavering commitment of Lead Counsel to this litigation. Several of the lead attorneys for the Class essentially devoted years of their lives to this litigation, with the personal sacrifices that accompany such a commitment. If the Lead Plaintiff had been represented by less tenacious and competent counsel, it is by no means clear that it would have achieved the success it did here on behalf of the Class. In order to attract well-qualified plaintiffs’ counsel who are able to take a case to trial, and who defendants understand are able and willing to do so, it is necessary to provide appropriate financial incentives. After all, this litigation was conducted on an entirely contingent fee basis, and Lead Counsel paid millions of dollars to fund the litigation. While some significant recovery in a case of this magnitude may seem a foregone conclusion now, the recovery achieved here was never certain. It is only the size of the Citigroup and Underwriters’ Settlements that make this recovery so historic, and it is likely that less able plaintiffs’ counsel would have achieved far less.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). The Plan of Allocation is approved. VII. Plaintiffs' Request for Attorneys' and Litigation Expenses is Granted Lead Counsel have moved for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25 percent of the Settlement Fund, for payment of $4,962,978.46 in litigation expenses incurred prosecuting this action, and for payment of $56,792.53 in costs and expenses incurred by the Class Representatives, as authorized by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) comparison of the proposed settlement with the likely result of litigation; (2) reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) stage of the litigation and the amount of discovery completed; (4) quality of counsel; (5) conduct of the negotiations; and (6) prospects of the case, including risk, complexity, expense and duration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.