In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation

Docket number: 20-cv-00955 (W.D. Pa.)

HLLI’s Center for Class Action Fairness and its director Ted Frank objected to a fee request in a shareholder settlement over Mylan Pharmaceuticals stock.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys would requested more than $14.9 million in attorneys’ fees — roughly 25% of the net settlement fund — though the settlement they negotiated recovers only about a penny per class member dollar of damages alleged. For example, the complaint alleges that shareholders lost over $14 per share because of fraud, but the settlement notice predicts that class members will recover $0.11/share from the settlement—minus the 25% the attorneys are requesting.

The request would also give plaintiffs’ attorneys sole authority to divide attorneys’ fees among several law firms, without public disclosure or court oversight. And it abandons the original agreement between the attorneys and the plaintiff, a Mississippi government pension fund. That undisclosed agreement, which was available on a Mississippi state government website, capped fees at less than half of what the attorneys are requesting now.

The underlying case, In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation, alleges that Mylan Pharmaceuticals misrepresented its manufacturing and testing processes to shareholders and regulators, exposing the company to legal liability and inflating the share price. The Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System (MissPERS), which owned Mylan stock, sued on behalf of the class over losses allegedly caused by Mylan’s misrepresentations.

MissPERS is represented by Bernstein Litowitz, which has a long history of representing the pension fund. HLLI’s objection notes that credible reports from independent media, a Bernstein Litowitz whistleblower, and academic sources suggest the existence of a “pay-to-play” relationship between MissPERS and the firm involving unnecessary legal work being directed to Mississippi lawyers when that money should be routed to the class, a similar fact pattern that led to the successful objection and appeal in Stericycle Securities Litigation.

On May 21, 2026, the court ordered further briefing to take place in June ahead of the June 15 hearing on the fee request.

Case Documents