Opinion ID: 4511550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Federal Plaintiﬀ Adequacy

Text: Finally, McFadden briefly posits that the existing federal plaintiﬀs are inadequate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(a) states that a “derivative action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiﬀ does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of shareholders or members who are similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association.” Because half of the monetary damages went to plaintiﬀs’ counsel, and because the federal plaintiﬀs stayed the case while a direct class action was in briefing, McFadden claims the plaintiﬀs failed to adequately represent PSI’s shareholders. As to the fees, the district court analyzed the basis and propriety of the amount in extensive detail during the approval hearing. The judge determined that the requested at- torneys’ fees represented “excellent” work done for two mediation sessions, multiple complaint drafts, motion to dismiss briefing, and pre- and post-complaint research and investigation. The judge also cited the settlement’s endorsement by the well-regarded mediator. We find no basis to overturn the judge’s thorough review and conclusion, and McFadden does not point to any analytical error. As to the stay of the federal derivative case, McFadden neglects to identify any authority showing that such a delay was unusual, let alone inappropriate. McFadden raises another point: that the federal plaintiﬀs do not meet contemporaneous ownership requirements. The No. 19-2755 19 district court found that, because plaintiﬀs alleged a continuing oﬀense, “they are plaintiﬀs who can claim damages for owning stock during a period when the company was allegedly engaging in accounting malfeasance.” Again, McFadden does not identify any error in the district court’s analysis and thus forfeited any relevant argument.