There was nothing of substance on the Panel dockets as of early this afternoon Panel time. But Judge Buchwald of the S.D.N.Y. resolved a most nasty brawl between Gainey & McKenna and Faruqi & Faruqi in the China-Biotics securities case. G & M opened the bidding blandly enough, and Faruqi responded with more pages, but no more vitriol.*
Then came the fireworks. Faruqi’s opposition to G & M’s motion accused the latter of “expressly contemplat[ing] lawyer-driven litigation,” and questioned whether G & M had the resources and experience for the job. G & M shot back by accusing Faruqi of having “plagiarized” the relevant facts in drafting its solicitation notice, and cited at length an article entitled When Merger Suits Enrich Only Lawyers–which references Faruqi, and is otherwise so disparaging of the securities class action bar that decorum prohibits imPaneled from linking to it here.
Anyhoo, Judge Buchwald substantially (and predictably) avoided the fray in ruling for G & M, defending its experience and charging Faruqi with “resort[ing] to speculation” as to that and related matters. Good luck to G & M in prosecuting the case, and thanks to everyone involved for the most entertaining submissions.
* – Faruqi’s initial brief is notable only for its touting its status as “a minority-owned and women-owned business,” citing Judge Baer’s infamous order in the Gildan Activewear case. Two years after that order, imPaneled still cannot divine how any class member would benefit from its widespread adoption. Judge Buchwald–whose chambers would be a woman-owned business, if they were, you know, a “business”–declined to comment.