4 ms·

The "investors" suing are just working with/for attorneys that extort massive legal fees and damages from public companies for a living. This case has nothing

The "investors" suing are just working with/for attorneys that extort massive legal fees and damages from public companies for a living. This case has nothing to do with the underlying conduct, which was merely a clerical error. These attorneys are one of the big reasons that unicorns are staying private. The most famous of these bottom-feeding attorneys, Bill Lerach, built an estimated net worth of $700 million [1] by creating exactly these kinds of nonsensical shareholder lawsuits against public companies. He also earned a short prison stint and a $7.5M fine for bribing shareholders to become plaintiffs in 150 of the cases he filed. Here is a fascinating video [2], entitled The Rise and Fall of Bill Lerach. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-12/convicted-king-of-class-actions-bill-lerach-builds-aviary-regrets-nothing http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-12/convicted-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYIC9GU9OeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYIC9GU9OeM

MrJagil 11y ago
It's interesting, reading your comment I was of the impression that Lerach must be universally disliked for his slimy methods, exploitation of the system and oppressiveness in the free market (unicorns scared to go public). Reading the first comment on the linked youtube video(i know) reminded me once again to be sceptical of everything i read though: "Bill Lerach, the former #1 enemy of corrupted corporations. He may not have acted out of personal values but at least for a while corporations had the fear in the back of their minds that if they were going to act unethically it might cost them millions of dollars in security class actions and corporate derivative suits. Where as now they are able to act in a fraudulent manner without fear of consequences. Larach is the most sincere lawyer I have ever seen. He also seems like a really likable guy." I'm unsure what to believe now, though I don't feel signing the wrong paper by accident is evidence of a "corrupted corporation". Of course, could also be the youtube commment was very sarcastic.
- downandout 11y ago
  To be sure, his work was a mixed bag. His firm ran the shareholder case against Enron, which clearly was not baseless litigation (his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million). However, having read a few things about him, the majority of the cases he brought were designed to extort quick settlements out of the companies. He was/is reviled by corporate America, and he probably appeals to the anti-corporate crowd that likes to see large corporations suffer simply because they are successful. That is why you see varying opinions.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    He might also appeal to people who are generally pro-corporate but also like to see anyone (individual or corporation) brought to justice if they misbehave? Can you really "extort" money through the court system in the US?
    - wolf550e 11y ago
      Patent trolling is extortion, isn't it?
      - forgetsusername 11y ago
        Extortion is a crime.
        balabaster 11y ago
        Unless it is mandated or endorsed by the Government - which by proxy of the Patent & Trademark office, patent trolling is. We might think of it, feel that it is or fully believe that it is extortion, but the Government feels that this is okay because "Fuck what we think. Lobbyists said this is fair, so it must be so." <end of cynical rant />
      - arethuza 11y ago
        Actually, that's a good example - thanks. I guess you could argue that problem is how silly patents are though rather than the problem being with the court system itself.
        Kalium 11y ago
        It's a good example because even if you know you can win to a high degree of certainty, the cost of fighting is much higher than the cost of settling. This applies to a great many kinds of litigation. Patents are not special in this regard, just a clear example.
    - bko 11y ago
thaumasiotes 11y ago
There's a great footnote to the article making a very similar point: > I should say, nothing in the actual court opinion here has anything to do with public markets: It's a decision of Delaware corporate law, applicable to public and private companies alike. But! The thing is, if Facebook was still private and controlled by its founder and a handful of venture capital firms, no one would have sued. It is not the law that is a feature of being a public company; it's the litigious shareholders.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Enough with the scare quotes Sometimes in order to enforce your rights you have to go to law
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
apricot 11y ago
Could there be second-level bottom-feeding attorneys whose business is suing bottom-feeding attorneys for abusing the law for their own monetary gain?
- firebones 11y ago
  "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's bottom-feeding attorneys all the way down!" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
forgetsusername 11y ago
>"which was merely a clerical error." It was likely a clerical error, in this instance. But that was only after discovered after the law suit. Should we give these corporate boards the benefit of the doubt? That's funny. >by creating exactly these kinds of nonsensical shareholder lawsuits against public companies It isn't "non-sensical". There are rules and laws that govern public companies, and public companies are obligated to follow them. Someone has to keep people honest, and in the US that's often done through the courts. I'm sure Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg will learn a lesson to be more diligent in such matters. That's the point.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- downandout 11y ago
  >I'm sure Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg will learn a lesson to be more diligent in such matters. That's the point. The point is to be awarded millions of dollars in legal fees, which they will undoubtedly receive.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

MrJagil 11y ago

It's interesting, reading your comment I was of the impression that Lerach must be universally disliked for his slimy methods, exploitation of the system and oppressiveness in the free market (unicorns scared to go public). Reading the first comment on the linked youtube video(i know) reminded me once again to be sceptical of everything i read though: "Bill Lerach, the former #1 enemy of corrupted corporations. He may not have acted out of personal values but at least for a while corporations had the fear in the back of their minds that if they were going to act unethically it might cost them millions of dollars in security class actions and corporate derivative suits. Where as now they are able to act in a fraudulent manner without fear of consequences. Larach is the most sincere lawyer I have ever seen. He also seems like a really likable guy." I'm unsure what to believe now, though I don't feel signing the wrong paper by accident is evidence of a "corrupted corporation". Of course, could also be the youtube commment was very sarcastic.

downandout 11y ago
To be sure, his work was a mixed bag. His firm ran the shareholder case against Enron, which clearly was not baseless litigation (his personal share of the legal fees awarded in that case alone was rumored to be $80 million). However, having read a few things about him, the majority of the cases he brought were designed to extort quick settlements out of the companies. He was/is reviled by corporate America, and he probably appeals to the anti-corporate crowd that likes to see large corporations suffer simply because they are successful. That is why you see varying opinions.
- arethuza 11y ago
  He might also appeal to people who are generally pro-corporate but also like to see anyone (individual or corporation) brought to justice if they misbehave? Can you really "extort" money through the court system in the US?
  - wolf550e 11y ago
    Patent trolling is extortion, isn't it?
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      Extortion is a crime.
      - balabaster 11y ago
        Unless it is mandated or endorsed by the Government - which by proxy of the Patent & Trademark office, patent trolling is. We might think of it, feel that it is or fully believe that it is extortion, but the Government feels that this is okay because "Fuck what we think. Lobbyists said this is fair, so it must be so." <end of cynical rant />
    - arethuza 11y ago
      Actually, that's a good example - thanks. I guess you could argue that problem is how silly patents are though rather than the problem being with the court system itself.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        It's a good example because even if you know you can win to a high degree of certainty, the cost of fighting is much higher than the cost of settling. This applies to a great many kinds of litigation. Patents are not special in this regard, just a clear example.
  - bko 11y ago

thaumasiotes 11y ago

There's a great footnote to the article making a very similar point: > I should say, nothing in the actual court opinion here has anything to do with public markets: It's a decision of Delaware corporate law, applicable to public and private companies alike. But! The thing is, if Facebook was still private and controlled by its founder and a handful of venture capital firms, no one would have sued. It is not the law that is a feature of being a public company; it's the litigious shareholders.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Enough with the scare quotes Sometimes in order to enforce your rights you have to go to law
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

apricot 11y ago

Could there be second-level bottom-feeding attorneys whose business is suing bottom-feeding attorneys for abusing the law for their own monetary gain?

firebones 11y ago
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's bottom-feeding attorneys all the way down!" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

forgetsusername 11y ago

>"which was merely a clerical error." It was likely a clerical error, in this instance. But that was only after discovered after the law suit. Should we give these corporate boards the benefit of the doubt? That's funny. >by creating exactly these kinds of nonsensical shareholder lawsuits against public companies It isn't "non-sensical". There are rules and laws that govern public companies, and public companies are obligated to follow them. Someone has to keep people honest, and in the US that's often done through the courts. I'm sure Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg will learn a lesson to be more diligent in such matters. That's the point.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
downandout 11y ago
>I'm sure Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg will learn a lesson to be more diligent in such matters. That's the point. The point is to be awarded millions of dollars in legal fees, which they will undoubtedly receive.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]