New Jersey Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources

Case # 14-cv-01031
Case Name New Jersey Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. OH

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misrepresented the condition of a mining project as a way to support a huge dividend increase.  As a result of these misrepresentations, investors and shareholders were defrauded.

Final Approval Date 06/30/2016
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Brown objection was considered and found to be without merit.
  3. Objector Brown appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (the N.D. OH is in the Sixth Circuit).
  4. Objector Brown then appealed the Final Approval (correctly) to the Sixth Circuit.
  5. Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $45,000 ($40,000 in administrative delay costs and $5,000 in appeal costs), which was opposed by Objector-Appellant Brown.
  6. The Court GRANTED the full $45,000 bond, noting "[it] will not countenance Attorney Brown's dubious efforts to extract a personal financial payoff - particularly when his meritless efforts and lack of diligence continue to postpone relief to the rest of the class (emphasis added)." (see Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond, page 2)
  7. Objector-Appellant Brown then appealed the motion for appeal bond without posting it.
  8. The appeal of the bond issue was dismissed for failure to prosecute (failure to pay the filing fee).
  9. Objector-Appellant Brown's "amended appeal" to the Sixth Circuit was dismissed as "untimely."
Dismissal of Last Appeal 04/14/2017
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Second Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeff M. Brown

Objectors Jeff M. Brown
Signers Jeff M. Brown
Attorneys Patrick Sweeney
  1. Claims process lacks sufficient oversight.
  2. There is no definite timeline for the claims administration process.
  3. A portion of the attorneys' fees should be withheld to provide adequate oversight.
  4. Attorneys' fees do not reflect actual recovery by the class.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and not supported by the docket record.
  6. Cy pres provisions should be included in the settlement.
  7. Litigation expenses may be inflated.
  8. Class representative request for compensation is improper.

In sworn deposition testimony in In re Yahoo! Mail Litigation, Patrick Sweeney testified that, despite not appearing in this case, he had drafted the objection and that any correspondence received by Objector Brown would be forwarded to him (see Patrick Sweeney Deposition Transcript at 110:2-111:6).

Attachments Objection of Jeff M. Brown.pdf
Patrick Sweeney Deposition Transcript (Yahoo Mail).pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Brown Objection.pdf
Appeal of Objector Brown.pdf
Dismissal of Brown Appeal.pdf
Amended Appeal of Objector Brown.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Brown Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Appeal of Objector Brown (Appeal Bond).pdf
Dismissal of Brown Bond Appeal.pdf
Brown Bond Appeal Docket.pdf
Dismissal of Amended Brown Appeal.pdf
Brown Amended Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated