In re Johnson & Johnson Derivative Litigation

Case # 10-cv-02033
Case Name In re Johnson & Johnson Derivative Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for NJ
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Johnson & Johnson conspired to cover up corporate wrongdoing, including recalls of medicine and of hip replacement parts.  They did so to give shareholders a false impression of the corporate responsiblity of the company.  Shareholders are entitled to know that the company observes good governance and best practices.

Final Approval Date 10/26/2012
Result
  1. Final approval of the settlement was granted.
  2. The attorneys' fee request was referred to a Special Master.
  3. The Special Master agreed with both the District Court judge and the Supplemental Objection of Objector Petri that the attorneys' time records, as a basis for their fee request, were deficient.
  4. Following the adjustment in the lodestar, attorneys' fees were reduced from $10,000,000 to $5,383,905.76 and costs were reduced from $450,000 to $416,305.73.
  5. Following the adoption of the report of the Special Master, Objector Petri voluntarily withdrew his appeal.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/15/2014
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Opinion.pdf
Final Order and Judgment.pdf
Report and Recommendation of Special Master.pdf
Order Adopting Special Master's Recommendations.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Brent Clifton, Kimberly Clifton

Objectors Brent Clifton
Kimberly Clifton
Signers Brent Clifton
Kimberly Clifton
Attorneys Gary W. Sibley
Summary
  1. Injunctive relief is illusory.
  2. Settlement shows signs of self-dealing.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE:  This objection was filed late.  Objectors requested to appear at the Fairness Hearing telephonically, which was denied by the Court.

Attachments Objection of Brent and Kimberly Clifton.pdf
Order Denying Clifton Telephonic Appearance.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Mark G. Petri

Objectors Mark G. Petri
Signers David M. Nieporent
Attorneys David M. Nieporent
Theodore H. Frank
Adam E. Schulman
Summary
  1. Settlement only provides illusory injunctive relief.
    • Johnson & Johnson merely agreeing to follow the law is not a concession.
  2. Settlement shows signs of self-dealing
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Lodestar is deficient.
Attachments Objection of Mark G. Petri.pdf
Nieporent Appearance for Objector Petri.pdf
Frank Appearance for Objector Petri.pdf
Declaration of Ted Frank in Support of Petri Objection.pdf
Supplemental Objection of Mark G. Petri.pdf
Appeal of Objector Petri.pdf
Schulman Appearance for Objector-Appellant Petri.pdf
Petri Objection to Special Master's Report.pdf
Petri Status Report (Appeal).pdf
Dismissal of Petri Appeal.pdf
Petri Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated