This first edition highlights several important cases litigated by some of the biggest national firms over the last month of 2024.
\nThe post Legalytics: Big Cases By The Numbers appeared first on Above the Law.<\/p>\n
![\"Interior](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/GettyImages-78487962-300x200.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
While quantifying case importance is a subjective art at best, there are some measurable elements that provide deeper than a gut impression as a basis for comparison. Some possibilities include dollar value or companies involved, case complexity, differences of opinion between judges, firms involved in litigating the cases, and interests or implications for those beyond the immediate parties to the matter.<\/p>\n
With these layers in mind, I started out by examining opinions where the following firms which are\u00a0currently around the top revenue generators<\/a>\u00a0in U.S. law were counsel: Gibson Dunn, Skadden, Latham, Morgan Lewis, White & Case, Ropes & Gray, Allen Overy, Kirkland & Ellis, DLA Piper, and Sidley Austin.<\/p>\n The sample of written opinions with at least 100 words (a way to attempt to exclude summary decisions) based on these parameters was 136.<\/p>\n Here are a few ways to break down the numbers. First based on law firm:<\/p>\n There is quite a range from 37 to three decisions and large drops from the first four firms to the next four and finally to the last two.<\/p>\n To get a sense of the lay of the land, below are the courts that issued these opinions.<\/p>\n Here we see the impact of the coasts as the four courts with the most decisions are SDNY (New York), NDCA (California), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (west coast), and the appellate divisions of the New York Supreme Court (the intermediate appeals tribunal in New York).<\/p>\n Next is a quick way to break down some of the significant issues in the cases based on a dictionary approach looking for multiple times these terms arise in a decision.<\/p>\n Many of these cases (perhaps not surprisingly for big firms) deal with financial implications and deals that broke down. There are still a nontrivial number of cases where the immediate concerns are not financial or at least are not predicated only on business interests.<\/p>\n Lastly a look at opinion count based on a distribution of majority word counts.<\/p>\n Most of these opinions are fairly short although only six were excluded from the analyses due to fewer than 100 words in them.<\/p>\n I ordered this list of five cases based on relative importance, mainly on dispersed impact, but also based on the other factors I described above.<\/p>\n Decision Link<\/a><\/p>\n Court<\/strong>: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit<\/p>\n Decision Date<\/strong>: December 11, 2024<\/p>\n Majority Opinion<\/strong>: Oldham;\u00a0Dissent<\/strong>: Higginson<\/p>\n Issue Areas<\/strong>: housing, financial, commerce, employment, liability, fraud, contracts<\/p>\n Majority words count<\/strong>: 11,351;\u00a0Dissent word count<\/strong>: 2,460<\/p>\n Amicus briefs<\/strong>: 14<\/p>\n What it\u2019s about<\/strong>: This case centers around a legal challenge to rules set by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Nasdaq regarding the disclosure of certain demographic information about directors of public companies. Specifically, the rules required companies listed on Nasdaq to disclose data about the race, gender, and sexual characteristics of their directors. The plaintiffs AFBR, argued that these disclosure requirements went beyond what is allowed under the law and violated certain legal principles.<\/p>\n At its core, this case is about whether government regulators, like the SEC and Nasdaq, can require companies to disclose sensitive information about their directors for the purpose of promoting transparency, even if such disclosures aren\u2019t directly related to financial performance or investor protection.<\/p>\n The Positions of the Two Sides:<\/strong><\/p>\n AFBR (Petitioner):<\/strong><\/p>\n AFBR, a group representing certain companies affected by the Nasdaq rule, argues that the SEC and Nasdaq have overstepped their authority by mandating disclosures of information that are not required by law. The main claim is that these rules go against the intent of the securities laws, which were created to protect investors from fraud, manipulation, and speculation, not to mandate social or demographic disclosures.<\/p>\n The group argued that requiring such disclosures doesn\u2019t align with the goals of the Securities Exchange Act, which was primarily designed to prevent financial fraud and market manipulation, not to force companies to reveal demographic information unrelated to financial performance.<\/p>\n SEC and Nasdaq (Respondent):<\/strong><\/p>\n The SEC and Nasdaq argue that their rules are within their authority and are in line with the objectives of the Securities Exchange Act. They believe that forcing companies to disclose such information is beneficial for investors and markets because it improves transparency and could potentially enhance corporate governance.<\/p>\n They argued that the rules are related to the Exchange Act\u2019s goals of providing transparency and protecting investors, and that disclosing demographic data about company directors might help investors make better-informed decisions about the companies they invest in.<\/p>\n Key Legal and Policy Issues:<\/strong><\/p>\n In this decision, the\u00a0major questions doctrine<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(a current hot topic) plays a central role in limiting the scope of the SECs regulatory power over corporate governance, particularly regarding the imposition of diversity requirements on corporate boards.<\/p>\n Major Questions Doctrine:<\/strong><\/p>\n The doctrine asserts that when an administrative agency, like the SEC, seeks to exercise power over a matter of significant economic or political importance, it must have clear and explicit authorization from Congress. This is because such power, if implied or unclear, could lead to significant changes in the nations economic landscape or government structure without proper democratic oversight. In this case, the SEC\u2019s attempt to impose diversity requirements on corporate boards is seen as a \u201cmajor question\u201d due to its massive economic and political implications. In this case, The SECs action of requiring Nasdaq-listed companies to adopt board diversity policies is characterized as a \u201cmajor question\u201d because it affects the internal structures of large corporations, including those with a combined market value greater than the GDP of the United States. The court argues that, while the SEC has broad powers under the Exchange Act, it cannot claim authority to reshape corporate governance based on vague statutory provisions without clear congressional approval.<\/p>\n The court also highlights that this kind of regulation\u2014pertaining to diversity on corporate boards\u2014is traditionally handled by other agencies (like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) or state laws, not the SEC. Therefore, applying the major questions doctrine here requires skepticism of the SEC\u2019s action, as no clear congressional mandate for such regulation exists in the Exchange Act.<\/p>\n Holding<\/strong>: Ultimately, the court concluded that the SEC\u2019s power to regulate corporate governance did not extend to imposing diversity requirements on corporate boards, as such a measure lacks the clear congressional authorization required by the major questions doctrine.<\/p>\n Main points in the\u00a0dissent<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Decision Link<\/a><\/p>\n Court<\/strong>: Supreme Court of Montana<\/p>\n Decision Date<\/strong>: December 11, 2024<\/p>\n Opinion Author<\/strong>: Justice Baker; Concurrence: Justice McKinnon; Concurrence and Dissent: Justice Rice<\/p>\n Areas of Law<\/strong>\u00a0employment, hearing, insurance, unconstitutional, evidence<\/p>\n Majority word count<\/strong>: 8,211;\u00a0Concurrence\u00a0<\/strong>(McKinnon): 1,579;\u00a0Concurrence and Dissent in part\u00a0<\/strong>(Rice): 661<\/p>\n Amicus Briefs<\/strong>: 2<\/p>\n What it\u2019s about<\/strong>: This case addresses the constitutionality of Montana Senate Bill 99 (SB 99), a law enacted in 2023 that restricts specific medical treatments for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The Plaintiffs argued that the law violates Montana\u2019s constitutional rights, including privacy and equal protection. Here\u2019s a summary of the key issues:<\/p>\n Overview of SB 99<\/strong><\/p>\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n State\u2019s Defense<\/strong><\/p>\n Holding<\/strong>: The court decided to uphold the District Court\u2019s preliminary injunction against SB 99, finding that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their privacy claim. The District Court determined that SB 99, which bans certain medical treatments for minors, violated the plaintiffs\u2019 fundamental right to privacy under the Montana Constitution. The court applied strict scrutiny and found that the State had not demonstrated a compelling interest or that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.<\/p>\n Key aspects of the decision include<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Overall, the court emphasized that the preliminary injunction did not resolve the ultimate merits of the case, which would be determined at trial. However, it found no abuse of discretion in the District Court\u2019s decision to enjoin SB 99 pending a final determination.<\/p>\n Justice McKinnon<\/strong>: Justice McKinnon concurred with the Court\u2019s decision to uphold the preliminary injunction on the plaintiffs\u2019 right to privacy claim but emphasized the importance of addressing the equal protection claim as well. McKinnon highlighted that Montana\u2019s constitutional protections are broader than their federal counterparts, particularly in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes transgender status. McKinnon criticized the Court\u2019s avoidance of this issue, arguing that it leaves litigants and lower courts without crucial guidance, fosters uncertainty, and delays justice for those impacted by SB 99. McKinnon underscored the necessity of recognizing transgender persons as a suspect class and applying strict scrutiny to the law, asserting that this case presents an opportunity to provide clarity on these critical legal questions under Montana\u2019s Constitution.<\/p>\n Justice Rice:<\/strong>\u00a0Justice Rice concurred with upholding the preliminary injunction, agreeing that SB 99\u2019s restrictions fail to meet the high bar of addressing a bona fide health risk but noted that evolving medical and legal standards require ongoing evaluation.<\/p>\n Decision Link<\/a><\/p>\n Court<\/strong>: Supreme Court of Delaware<\/p>\n Decision Date<\/strong>: December 2, 2024<\/p>\n Opinion Author<\/strong>: Justice Valihura<\/p>\n Areas of law<\/strong>\u00a0conspiracy, merger, bargaining, contract law, financial, torts, purchasing, liability, fraud<\/p>\n Opinion word count<\/strong>: 26,435<\/p>\n Amicus brief<\/strong>: 0<\/p>\n What it\u2019s about<\/strong>: This case revolves around the sale of Mindbody, a software company, to Vista Equity Partners for $36.50 per share in 2018. The lawsuit focuses on whether the company\u2019s CEO, Rick Stollmeyer, and the board of directors acted properly during the sale process. Shareholders claim that Stollmeyer prioritized his own interests over securing the best price for investors, including early discussions with Vista, favoring them over other bidders, and failing to disclose critical financial information before the merger vote. The case examines whether these actions violated fiduciary duties to shareholders and influenced the sale\u2019s outcome unfairly.<\/p>\n Decision<\/strong>: CEO Richard Stollmeyer, Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, and Mindbody lost on several critical points, including:<\/p>\n Stollmeyer and the acquirer were also found to have waived their right to seek settlement credit and the acquirers failure to correct material omissions did not meet the \u201cknowing participation\u201d element for aiding and abetting claims.<\/p>\n What the appellants won:<\/strong><\/p>\n The appellees (stockholders) were the bigger winners, as they secured the damages award and the ruling on the breach of fiduciary duty. The appellants (CEO and acquiror) managed to secure partial reversals, particularly on the aiding and abetting claims.<\/p>\n Decision Link<\/a><\/p>\n Court<\/strong>: N.D. Ohio,<\/p>\n Decision Date<\/strong>: November 26, 2024<\/p>\n Opinion Author<\/strong>: Judge Pamela Barker<\/p>\n Areas of Law<\/strong>\u00a0contract law, employment, liability, accommodations, precedent, religion, labor, evidence<\/p>\n Opinion Word Count<\/strong>: 21,711<\/p>\n Amicus Briefs<\/strong>: 0<\/p>\n What it\u2019s about<\/strong>: This case centers around an employee, Bobnar who worked AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company, and requested religious exemptions from the company\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Bobnar requested a religious accommodation to avoid the COVID-19 vaccine, citing his religious beliefs about bodily integrity. However, his request was denied, and he was eventually terminated by AstraZeneca.<\/p>\n Bobnar also applied for paternity leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was granted. However, he faced issues during his leave, including being contacted by coworkers for work-related matters and feeling pressured to continue business activities while on leave. He considered these communications harassment. Bobnar was also part of a sales incentive program and was expecting a bonus, but his termination affected his eligibility to receive the bonus.<\/p>\n The legal issues in the case revolve around whether AstraZeneca appropriately handled the religious accommodation requests and whether Bobnar\u2019s termination was justified, particularly in relation to his leave and bonus eligibility. The case also touches on the legality of AstraZeneca\u2019s actions under employment law, including how they managed the accommodation requests, leave, and incentive pay.<\/p>\n Decision Parts<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Why was Bobnar the bigger winner?<\/strong><\/p>\n Decision Link<\/a><\/p>\n Court<\/strong>: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District<\/p>\n Areas of Law<\/strong>\u00a0insurance, commerce, education, liability, fraud<\/p>\n Majority<\/strong>: Justice Mullen;\u00a0Dissent<\/strong>: Justice McLaren<\/p>\n Majority word count<\/strong>: 10,953;\u00a0Dissent word count<\/strong>: 698<\/p>\n Amicus brief<\/strong>: 1<\/p>\n What it\u2019s about<\/strong>: This case centers on a claim brought by plaintiff Calley Fausett against Walgreen Company (doing business as Walgreens), alleging that Walgreens violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). Specifically, the plaintiff claims that Walgreens printed more than the last five digits of debit card numbers on receipts provided to customers, which is prohibited under section 1681c(g)(1) of FACTA.<\/p>\n Positions of the Parties<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Legal Background<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong>: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming the decision of the circuit court to grant class certification. The court concluded that the plaintiff had standing to bring a claim under FACTA in Illinois state court. The court rejected the defendants argument that the plaintiff lacked standing due to the absence of an actual injury, stating that under Illinois law, a violation of statutory rights, such as a willful violation of FACTA, is sufficient to confer standing. This conclusion was consistent with Illinois approach to standing, which does not require proof of concrete harm or injury in fact. The court emphasized that it was not addressing the ultimate success of the plaintiffs claim, only the issue of standing and the propriety of granting class certification.<\/p>\n Dissent<\/strong>: Judge McLaren disagreed with the majority\u2019s decision to approve the class certification (the ability of the plaintiff to represent a group of people in the lawsuit) at this stage. The dissent argued that the majority made an incomplete and speculative decision by addressing only one issue\u2014whether the plaintiff has standing to bring the case\u2014while ignoring other important legal questions, such as whether the plaintiffs claim is valid or whether certain legal defenses apply. The dissent also criticized the majority for affirming the class certification without fully reviewing all the necessary details, which the dissent believed should have been handled by the trial court before deciding on the class. Essentially, the dissent argued the majority was making a premature decision without enough information and should have sent the case back for further review instead of addressing the class certification.<\/p>\n Read more from Legalytics here\u2026.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. Check out more of his writing at Legalytics<\/a> and Empirical SCOTUS<\/a>. For more information, write Adam at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Find him on Twitter:\u00a0@AdamSFeldman.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This first edition highlights several important cases litigated by some of the biggest national firms over the last month of 2024. The post Legalytics: Big Cases By The Numbers appeared first on Above the Law. While quantifying case importance is a subjective art at best, there are some measurable elements that provide deeper than a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":99293,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law","category-legal_matters"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/GettyImages-78487962-scaled-uWGWmy.jpeg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99292\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/99293"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F083d504b-8249-4f4d-9be5-6dc35bf2facf_2110x1288.png?resize=1080%2C659&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9573282e-f17a-47a5-858f-9211701738c2_2707x1679.png?resize=1080%2C670&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb1c6cfbe-bb82-4858-b0cd-e744ed457674_2096x1303.png?resize=1080%2C671&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1fedf1db-9d2b-4d75-8838-d47be8b242bb_2080x1223.png?resize=1080%2C635&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n