Shareholder Derivative

Robbins Geller performed ‘a commendable job of addressing the relevant issues with great detail and in a comprehensive manner … . The court respects the [Firm’s] experience in the field of derivative [litigation].’
Hon. Carlos Murguia, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Olofson

Robbins Geller’s shareholder derivative and corporate governance practice is focused on preserving corporate assets and enhancing long-term shareowner value. Shareowner derivative actions are often brought by institutional investors to vindicate the rights of the corporation injured by its executives’ misconduct, which can effect violations of the nation’s securities, anti-corruption, false claims, cyber-security, labor, environment and/or health and safety laws.

The Firm’s attorneys have aided its clients in significantly enhancing shareowner value by obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial clawbacks and successfully negotiating corporate governance enhancement. Robbins Geller has worked with its institutional clients to address corporate misconduct such as options backdating, bribery of foreign officials, pollution, off-label marketing, and insider trading and related self-dealing.

Robbins Geller’s significant achievements in shareholder derivative and corporate governance litigation include:

In re Community Health Sys., Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., No. 3:11-cv-00489 (M.D. Tenn.). Robbins Geller obtained unprecedented corporate governance reforms on behalf of Community Health Systems, Inc. in a case against the company’s directors and officers for breaching their fiduciary duties by causing Community Health to develop and implement admissions criteria that systematically steered patients into unnecessary inpatient admissions, in contravention of Medicare and Medicaid regulations. The governance reforms obtained as part of the settlement include two shareholder-nominated directors, the creation of a Healthcare Law Compliance Coordinator with specified qualifications and duties, a requirement that the Board’s Compensation Committee be comprised solely of independent directors, the implementation of a compensation clawback that will automatically recover compensation improperly paid to the company’s CEO or CFO in the event of a restatement, the establishment of an insider trading controls committee, and the adoption of a political expenditure disclosure policy. In addition to these reforms, $60 million in financial relief was obtained, which is the largest shareholder derivative recovery ever in Tennessee and the Sixth Circuit.
City of Westland Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Stumpf (Wells Fargo Derivative Litigation), No. 3:11-cv-02369 (N.D. Cal.). Robbins Geller prosecuted this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Wells Fargo & Co., alleging that Wells Fargo’s executives allowed participation in the mass-processing of home foreclosure documents by engaging in widespread robo-signing, i.e., the execution and submission of false legal documents in courts across the country without verification of their truth or accuracy, and failed to disclose Wells Fargo’s lack of cooperation in a federal investigation into the bank’s mortgage and foreclosure practices. In settlement of the action, Wells Fargo agreed to provide $67 million in homeowner down-payment assistance, credit counseling, and improvements to its mortgage servicing system. The initiatives will be concentrated in cities severely impacted by the bank’s foreclosure practices and the ensuing mortgage foreclosure crisis. Additionally, Wells Fargo agreed to change its procedures for reviewing shareholder proposals and a strict ban on stock pledges by Wells Fargo board members.
In re Ormat Techs., Inc. Derivative Litig., No. CV10-00759 (Nev. Dist. Ct., Washoe Cnty.). Robbins Geller brought derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the directors and certain officers of Ormat Technologies, Inc., a leading geothermal and recovered energy power business. During the relevant time period, these Ormat insiders caused the company to engage in accounting manipulations that ultimately required restatement of the company’s financial statements. The settlement in this action includes numerous corporate governance reforms designed to, among other things: (i) increase director independence; (ii) provide continuing education to directors; (iii) enhance the company’s internal controls; (iv) make the company’s board more independent; and (iv) strengthen the company’s internal audit function.
In re Alphatec Holdings, Inc. Derivative S’holder Litig., No. 37-2010-00058586 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cnty.). The Firm obtained sweeping changes to Alphatec’s governance, including separation of the Chairman and CEO positions, enhanced conflict of interest procedures to address related-party transactions, rigorous director independence standards requiring that at least a majority of directors be outside independent directors, and ongoing director education training.
In re Finisar Corp. Derivative Litig., No. C-06-07660 (N.D. Cal.). Robbins Geller prosecuted the shareholder derivative action on behalf of Finisar against certain of its current and former directors and officers for engaging in an alleged nearly decade-long stock option backdating scheme that was alleged to have inflicted substantial damage upon Finisar. After obtaining a reversal of the district court’s order dismissing the complaint for failing to adequately allege that a pre-suit demand was futile, Robbins Geller lawyers successfully prosecuted the derivative claim to resolution, obtaining over $15 million in financial clawbacks for Finisar. The Firm’s attorneys also obtained significant changes to Finisar's stock option granting procedures and corporate governance. As a part of the settlement, Finisar agreed to ban the repricing of stock options without first obtaining specific shareholder approval, prohibit the retrospective selection of grant dates for stock options and similar awards, limit the number of other boards on which Finisar directors may serve, annually elect a Lead Independent Director whenever the position of Chairman and CEO are held by the same person, and require the board appoint a Trading Compliance officer responsible for ensuring compliance with Finisar's insider trading policies.

Loizides v. Schramm (Maxwell Technology Derivative Litigation), No. 37-2010-00097953 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cnty.). The Firm prosecuted this shareholder derivative claim arising from the company’s alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCPA”). As a result of Robbins Geller’s efforts, Maxwell insiders agreed to adopt significant changes in Maxwell’s internal controls and systems designed to protect Maxwell against future potential violations of the FCPA. These corporate governance changes included establishing the following, among other things: a compliance plan to improve board oversight of Maxwell’s compliance process and internal controls; a clear corporate policy prohibiting bribery and subcontracting kickbacks, whereby individuals are accountable; mandatory employee training requirements, including the comprehensive explanation of whistleblower provisions, to provide for confidential reporting of FCPA violations or other corruption; enhanced resources and internal control and compliance procedures for the audit committee to act quickly if an FCPA violation or other corruption is detected; an FCPA and Anti-Corruption Compliance department that has the authority and resources required to asses global operations and detect violations of the FCPA and other instances of corruption; a rigorous ethics and compliance program applicable to all directors, officers, and employees, designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws; an executive-level position of Chief Compliance Officer with direct board-level reporting responsibilities, who shall be responsible for overseeing and managing compliance issues within the company; a rigorous insider trading policy buttressed by enhanced review and supervision mechanisms and a requirement that all trades are timely disclosed; and enhanced provisions requiring that business entities are only acquired after thorough FCPA and anti-corruption due diligence by legal, accounting, and compliance personnel at Maxwell.
In re SciClone Pharms., Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., No. CIV 499030 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cnty.). Robbins Geller attorneys successfully prosecuted the derivative claims on behalf of nominal party SciClonePharmaceuticals, Inc., resulting in the adoption of state-of-the-art corporate governance reforms. The corporate governance reforms included the establishment of an FCPA compliance coordinator; the adoption of an FCPA compliance program and code; and the adoption of additional internal controls and compliance functions.
Policemen & Firemen Ret. Sys. of the City of Detroit v. Cornelison (Halliburton Derivative Litigation), No. 2009-29987 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cnty.). The Firm prosecuted shareholder derivative claims on behalf of Halliburton Company against certain Halliburton insiders for breaches of fiduciary duty arising from Halliburton’s alleged violations of the FCPA. In the settlement, Halliburton agreed, among other things, to adopt strict intensive controls and systems designed to detect and deter the compensation clawback, director stock ownership requirements, a limitation on the number of other boards that Halliburton directors may serve, a lead director charter, enhanced director independence standards, and the creation of a management compliance committee.
In re Fossil, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 3:06-cv-10672 (N.D. Tex.). The settlement agreement included the following corporate governance changes: declassification of elected board members; retirement of three directors and addition of five new independent directors; two-thirds board independence requirements; corporate governance guidelines providing for “Majority Voting” election of directors; lead independent director requirements; revised accounting measurement dates of options; addition of standing finance committee; compensation clawbacks; director compensation standards; revised stock option plans and grant procedures; limited stock option granting authority, timing, and pricing; enhanced education and training; and audit engagement partner rotation and outside audit firm review.
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. Sinegal (Costco Derivative Litigation), No. 2:08-cv-01450 (W.D. Wash.). The parties agreed to settlement terms providing for the following corporate governance changes: the amendment of Costco’s bylaws to provide “Majority Voting” election of directors; the elimination of overlapping compensation and audit committee membership on common subject matters; enhanced Dodd-Frank requirements; enhanced internal audit standards and control, and revised information-sharing procedures; revised compensation policies and procedures; revised stock option plans and grant procedures; limited stock option granting authority, timing, and pricing; and enhanced ethics compliance standards and training.
In re F5 Networks, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. C-06-0794 (W.D. Wash.). The parties agreed to the following corporate governance changes as part of the settlement: revised stock option plans and grant procedures; limited stock option granting authority, timing, and pricing; “Majority Voting” election of director perquisites; and revised compensation practices.