quinn emanuel
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp | business litigation report
INSIDE
Mostly Good News for
Defendants in ERISA Stock-
Drop Cases
Page 4
Litigation Updates
Patent Litigation
Page 6
Securities Litigation
Page 6
Japanese Litigation
Page 8
Entertainment Litigation
Page 9
QE Wins Summary
Judgment for Surety and
Other Victories
Page 11
Attorney Advertising
March 2011
Converium
Decision by Dutch Court Promotes European Venue
for Binding Settlement of Mass Claims
los angeles | new york | san francisco | silicon valley | chicago | tokyo | london | mannheim
(continued on page 2)
Maria Ginzburg Joins Quinn Emanuel’s New York Ofce
see page 11
(concluded on page 4)
Quinn Emanuel Selected as One of
Law360
’s Insurance Groups
of the Year
Law360 recently announced that Quinn
Emanuel is one of the top ve “Insurance
Groups of 2010.” Law360 noted
that its editors solicited nominations
from more than 300 law rms before
selecting the ve that had “wrack[ed]
up crucial victories for their clients.”
e publication highlighted Quinn
Emanuel’s successes in: (1) persuading
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to vacate a $35 million jury
verdict against American International
Group Inc. in a suit brought by rival
insurer AXA Versicherung AG, and (2)
obtaining a dismissal with prejudice
of a nationwide class action against
AIG spino Chartis Insurance Group
in a case in which investors sought
reimbursement for losses suered as
a result of having invested in Bernard
Mado’s ponzi scheme. Q
e Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s recent decision in
Converium Holdings AG may signal the emergence of
Dutch courts as a forum in which parties can settle
cross-border mass claims, subject only to opt outs.
In November 2010, that court held that it could
declare binding a proposed settlement in a case in
which 12,000 investors, only 200 of whom were from
the Netherlands, alleged securities fraud on the part
of Converium, a Swiss reinsurer with no securities
listed on Netherlands-based exchanges. Scor Holdings
AG (f/k/a Converium Holdings AG), Gerechtshof
Amsterdam [HoF] [Amsterdam Court of Appeal],
Amsterdam, 12 Nov. 2010 NJ—(Neth.) e decision
notably expanded the jurisdiction the same court
had exercised a year before in approving a settlement
between Royal Dutch Shell and a class of non-U.S.
investors who alleged that Shell had misstated its
proven reserves. Shell Petroleum N.V./Dexia Bank
Nederland N.V., Gerechtshof Amsterdam [HoF]
[Amsterdam Court of Appeal], Amsterdam, 29 May
2009 NJ 506 (Neth.) (hereinafter “Shell Petroleum”).
e signicance is that the Netherlands is the only
European country that, like the United States, provides
for the binding settlement of mass claims. Although
Converium will be provisional pending a fairness
hearing later this year, it will likely become nal, thus
making the settlement binding, at a minimum, in all
EU member states, as well as Switzerland, Iceland,
and Norway, under the Brussels I Regulation and the
Lugano Convention.
e Amsterdam Court of Appeal appears to be
acting consciously to create a forum for cross-border
mass claims; it referenced limitations imposed, for
example, by the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v.
National Australia Bank Ltd., __U.S.__, 130 S. Ct.
2869 (2010), restricting the extra-U.S. application of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. Id. at
2884 (holding that Section 10b-5 applies “[o]nly [to]
transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges,
and domestic transactions in other securities”).
Aggrieved shareholders already appear to have
recognized Converium’s signicance: A foundation
representing a global consortium of shareholders
led a securities fraud class action on January 10,
2011, in the Utrecht Civil Court against Fortis—
once the largest nancial institution in Belgium
and the Netherlands that collapsed in spectacular
fashion following its ill-fated acquisition of ABN
Amro. Moreover, in the Fortis case, shareholders are
not presenting a proposed settlement, but rather are
raising claims for adjudication.
Overview of Dutch Class Action System
Unique to European legal systems, Dutch law provides
rudimentary elements of a class action system. e two
most important provisions are the Dutch Act on the
