Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corporation et al
Plaintiff: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
Defendant: State Street Corporation, State Street Bank & Trust Company and State Street Global Markets, LLC
Case Number: 1:2011cv10230
Filed: February 10, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Suffolk
Presiding Judge: Mark L. Wolf
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 681 Judge Mark L. Wolf: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The court hereby REQUESTS that: (a) the First Circuit invite it to retain counsel to appear on behalf of the court as fiduciary for the class with regard to Lieff's appeal of the February 27, 2020 Or der and, if the First Circuit finds it desirable, concerning any appeal of the March 12, 2021 Order denying Lieff's request for a stay pending appeal, cf. Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)(4); (b) provide a reasonable period of time for Mr. Brann to file an appearance and prepare; and (c) order an appropriate briefing schedule. (Loret, Magdalena)
March 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 680 Judge Mark L. Wolf: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 667 Motion to Stay Execution on Judgment, Pending Appeal by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP for a Partial Stay of Execution on Judgment, Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 667) is DENIED. However, the court will not order distribution of the funds escrowed by Lieff until at least 14 days after the First Circuit decides any appeal of this decision by Lieff. Lieff shall, by March 22, 2021, state whether it intends to appeal this denial of its request for a stay. (Loret, Magdalena)
January 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 662 Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered granting (647) Motion for Attorneys' Fees; denying (649) Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem in case 1:11-cv-10230-MLW. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. CCAF's Motion for Attorneys' Fee Award (D kt. No. 647) is ALLOWED. CCAF is awarded $60,690, to be paid from the common fund in two installments, on the dates stated in Exhibit 1 hereto. 2. Class Counsel shall make payments into escrow on the dates, and in the amounts, stated in Exhib it 1. 3. Distributions from the funds escrowed by Class Counsel shall be made on the dates, and in the amounts, stated in Exhibit 1. 4. Lieff shall file its appeal and motion to stay in this court by January 27, 2021. 5. Final Judgment concerni ng the award of attorneys' fees shall enter in accordance with the February 27, 2020 Memorandumand Order (Dkt. No. 590) and, with regard to CCAF, this Order. 6. CCAF's Renewed Motion to be Appointed Guardian Ad Litem for the Class (Dkt. No. 649) is DENIED without prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Second Revised Payment Plan) Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-10230-MLW, 1:11-cv-12049-MLW, 1:12-cv-11698-MLW, 1:21-cv-10067-MLW(Loret, Magdalena)
February 27, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 590 Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that:1. The Proposed Resolution of Labaton's Objections to theSpecial Master's Report (Dkt. No. 485) is DENIED.2. After hearings and considering de< /u> novo all objections to the Master's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including Labaton's, the Master's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 357) is ADOPTED in part, REJECTED in part, and MODIFIED in the manner describ ed in this Memorandum and Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f). More specifically, $60,000,000 is awarded to counsel forplaintiffs as reasonable fees and expenses. From the $60,000,000 a total of $22,202,131.25 shall be paid to Labaton; a total of $13,261,908.10 shall be paid to Thornton; a total of $15,233,397.53 shall be paid to Lieff; a total of $3,978,152.18 shall be paid to Keller Rohrback; a total of $3,439,775.42 shall be paid to McTigue; and a total of  6;3,298,598.55 shall be paid to Zuckerman Spaeder.3. Service Awards shall be paid as follows: $15,000 to ATRS, and $10,000 to each of the six ERISA Plaintiffs, Arnold Henriquez, Michael T. Cohn, William R. Taylor, Richard A. Sutherland, The Andover Companies Employee Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, and James Pehoushek-Stangeland.4. This matter is RESUBMITTED to the Master. The Master shall, by March 23, 2020:(a) Consult Class Counsel, ERISA Counsel, and CCAF, and report conce rning whether notice to the class of new awards that have been ordered is legally required or appropriate. If the Master or anyone consulted is of the view that notice to the class should be given, the Master shall submit a proposed form of notice.(b)Report how he proposes to manage the implementation of this Order, including the required recovery from Labaton, Thornton, and Lieff of fees previously awarded, and the reallocation of them to other counsel and the class.(c) Identify and provi de advice on any other issues relevant to the implementation of this Order.5. Labaton and Thornton shall, by March 11, 2020, provide to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts an additional $250,000 eac h to pay past and future reasonable fees and expenses of the Master and any firm, organization, or individual assisting him.6. The Clerk shall send this Memorandum and Order to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for whatever action, if any, it deems appropriate. Upon request, the Clerk shall provide the Board any documents in the public record of this case. The Board of Bar Overseers may move for the unsealing of sealed documents. The Board shall report its final actions to the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-10230-MLW, 1:11-cv-12049-MLW, 1:12-cv-11698-MLW(Montes, Mariliz)
May 2, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 204 Judge Mark L. Wolf: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered re: Docket Entry 199 . (Bono, Christine)
February 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 117 Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.(Bono, Christine)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
Represented By: Garrett J. Bradley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: State Street Corporation
Represented By: William H. Paine
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: State Street Bank & Trust Company
Represented By: William H. Paine
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: State Street Global Markets, LLC
Represented By: William H. Paine
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?