In a victory against unfair class action practices, a district judge found that so-called “strike-suit” plaintiffs violated a securities law and Rule 11 by filing frivolous suits against Akorn, Inc. and its board in 2017, when Akorn was in the process of approving an unsuccessful merger.
Bloomberg Law covered our case, Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc., where the judge issued an order sanctioning strike-suit filers.
Law360 wrote about our case, Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc..
Scott Holland at the Cook County Record detailed HLLI's recent Seventh Circuit win in the Akorn cases.
Alison Frankel reported on the implications of HLLI's appellate victory yesterday in Akorn, which allows HLLI director Ted Frank to intervene against strike suit plaintiffs.
The National Law Journal covered HLLI's intervention in Carlyle v. Akorn.
Frank has also argued for sanctions against the law firms and an injunction barring them from securing attorneys fees without court approval. He said he can’t afford to intervene in each of the many dozens of cases that are resolved with mootness fees. “It’s not enough to have this whack-a-mole game that will not deter the behavior,” he told Law360.
Ted Frank, an Akorn shareholder, moved to intervene and object to the fee. Judge Durkin ordered the parties to brief the issue whether he had “inherent authority” to abrogate the settlement in light of the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in the Walgreen case...
The decision is vindication for class action watchdog Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. Frank, an Akorn shareholder, tried to intervene in the litigation in 2017, when plaintiffs’ lawyers disclosed their $322,500 mootness fee in a stipulation asking Judge Durkin to sign an order closing cases voluntarily dismissed by individual shareholders.
While Judge Durkin refused Frank’s request to intervene as a litigant, the judge said the plaintiffs’ attorneys must address Frank’s contentions concerning the Walgreen decision before allowing the attorneys to keep their fees.