Wolf Popper LLP

Judicial Commentary

A sampling of some of the praise the Firm has consistently received over the course of its practice include the following cases:

In granting preliminary approval in one of the firm’s glucosamine mislabeling cases, Judge Staton of the Central District of California, noted that “[p]laintiff's counsel have vigorously litigated the action on behalf of the class.” Casey v. Doctor's Best, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-01325, 2022 WL 1726080, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022). 

In February 2020, the Firm was appointed class counsel and the Firm’s client, the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed class representative in a securities fraud class action against TreeHouse Foods. In appointing the Firm, Judge Dow of the Northern District of Illinois held “that counsel is experienced and competent.” Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., No. 16-cv-10632, 2020 WL 919249, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2020). 

In appointing the Firm as Lead Counsel, Judge Broderick of the Southern District of New York found “that Wolf Popper is well qualified to serve as lead counsel in the instant case. The attorneys at Wolf Popper have had substantial experience with securities litigations as well as securities fraud class actions.” Aude v. Kobe Steel, Ltd., No. 17-CV-10085 (VSB), 2018 WL 1634872, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2018). 

At a settlement hearing before the Delaware Chancery Court on January 26, 2017, in In re: Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case 8922, (Del. Ch.), in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel, Vice Chancellor Glasscock approved a settlement that established a gross settlement fund of $17.9 million for the benefit of Cornerstone’s minority stockholders. The Court stated that class attorneys achieved “almost nothing short of the best result.” The Court pointed out that “[t]here was a great deal of litigation done. Interesting and undetermined areas of law had to be explored by counsel for both sides.” Vice Chancellor Glasscock later said at the hearing that it was “vanishingly unlikely” that shareholders left any claims behind in the deal. 

Judge Sandra L. Lynch of the First Circuit noted the quality of the Firm’s oral argument on the appeal and cross-appeal in In re PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, MAZ Partners LP v. Bruce A. Shear, Nos. 17-1821, 17-1904 (1st Cir., May 9, 2018), stating “I’d just like to say, this was an unusually good argument from both sides. It’s more of a pleasure to be a judge when we get good arguments from counsel. Thank you.” Judge Raul R. Torruella, who also sat on the First Circuit panel, expressly agreed: “I join Judge Lynch’s statement.” In subsequently affirming the District Court's monetary award to the plaintiff class, the First Circuit also noted that the issues on appeal were “intricate, entangled, and in some instances novel.” MAZ Partners LP v. Shear (In re PHC, Inc. S'holder Litig.), Nos. 17-1821, 17-1904, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18035, *1 (1st Cir. July 2, 2018). 

Prior thereto, in the District Court trial proceedings in In re PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 11-11049-PBS, Chief Judge Patti Saris, who oversaw the two week jury trial in federal court in Boston in February-March 2017, complimented counsel for their skill and professionalism, stating:

I think you all [ ] did a great job trying this case. I was telling my law clerks you don't often see commercial litigation actually go to trial so [this is] a great example not only it being litigated but also, you know, the skills .... and I thank the folks in [your office] for so much support that they've given along the way because I know it's a big case with a lot of paper.... And someone should study the case in terms of how attorneys should treat one another, and I appreciate that….