Matthew M. Friestedt

Attorneys representing investors that settled with Vanguard for $25 million to end claims the company improperly triggered an asset sell-off that damaged investors asked a Pennsylvania federal court on Tuesday to award them $8.3 million in fees in addition to other expenses. Class counsel for the investors said an $8.3 million payout, which is equal to about a third of the settlement amount, is reasonable considering the attorneys have spent over 6,100 hours litigating the action, and will continue devoting time to the case as the parties prepare for the final approval hearing scheduled for Jan. 6. Additionally, the attorneys seek approximately $941,000 in expense reimbursement and $20,000 service awards for each of the suit's 12 named plaintiffs. "Given Plaintiffs' extensive efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class and the size of the Settlement achieved, these awards are reasonable and in line with other awards granted by courts in the Third Circuit," Tuesday's motion states. The settlement was preliminarily approved in September by U.S. District Judge John Murphy. The parties agreed to a settlement amount lower than the previous $40 million offer to account for a parallel U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission settlement with Vanguard, which would award $133 million to the investors who agreed to settle in the class action before the federal court, according to a September court filing. The dispute arose after investors filed a putative class action against Vanguard in 2022, arguing that the company breached its fiduciary duty and failed to protect its smaller investors in an attempt to lower fees. Investors in what are known as set-it-and-forget-it funds were forced to sell off as much as 15% of their assets, leaving those with taxable accounts holding the bag, they said. Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. The plaintiff investors are represented by Gregory Dovel, Julien Adams, Jonas B. Jacobson, Christin Cho and Simon Carlo Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP, Joshua Baker, Phillip Kim, Jonathan Stern, Erica L. Stone and Jacob A. Goldberg of The Rosen Law Firm PA, Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Mark C. Rifkin and Matthew M. Guiney of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Richard M. Golomb and Kevin W. Fay of Golomb Legal, W. Daniel Miles III and James B. Eubank of Beasley Allen Law Firm and Timothy Brown of The Brown Law Firm PC. Vanguard and its officers are represented by Brandon Fetzer, Elliot Greenfield and Maeve O'Connor of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Samuel W. Silver of Welsh & Recker PC. The independent trustees managing the funds are represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich and Daniel J. Kramer of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP and Francis P. Devine III and Michael E. Baughman of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. The case is In re: Vanguard Chester Funds Litigation, case number 2:22-cv-00955, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Dec 2

2 min

Paul, Weiss is advising D-Wave Quantum Inc., a leader in quantum computing systems, software and services, and the world’s first commercial supplier of quantum computers, in its $550 million cash-and-stock acquisition of Quantum Circuits Inc., a leading developer of error-corrected superconducting gate-model quantum computing systems. The transaction secures D-Wave's position as the only company capable of addressing the full quantum computing opportunity with industry-leading gate-model and annealing quantum computing technology. The purchase price will consist of $300 million in D-Wave common stock and $250 million in cash. The deal is expected to close this month, pending customary closing conditions. The Paul, Weiss team is led by corporate partners Stan Richards, Adam Givertz and Christian Kurtz, and includes partners Christopher Cummings, Peter McCormack and Steven Kaye; intellectual property partners Jonathan Ashtor and Brianna van Kan; executive compensation partners Christopher Gonnella and Matthew Friestedt; tax partners Sohail Itani and Brian Krause; antitrust partners Marta Kelly and Yuni Sobel, and counsel Todd Hahn and John Magruder; and litigation partner Pietro Signoracci.

Jan 7

1 min

Consumers told the Ninth Circuit they need to appeal a district court ruling that decertified a class of iPhone buyers expected to reach 200 million members in an antitrust case over Apple's App Store policies because the ruling was a "death knell" for the case. The consumers filed a proposed reply brief Friday in support of their petition appealing the decertification ruling. The consumers said the lower court's "erroneous" order has left the named plaintiffs with just $268 in potential damages, instead of the more than $20 billion sought by the class. "Apple's suggestion the parties should be forced to spend millions of dollars to try claims worth a few hundred — and appeal certification thereafter — is not realistic," the consumers said. "It would grossly misuse judicial resources to undertake such a trial solely to generate a final judgment where, as here, the decertification arose from reversible legal error." The consumers said the lower court initially accepted an expert's model that calculated overcharges for every App Store transaction, grouped by Apple ID, as a basis for showing that nearly all class members suffered damages from the App Store policies. But the court then imposed an additional requirement when reviewing the decertification motion and called for the class to identify every member's individual damages before trial. When Apple's data prevented a second expert from performing this additional step, the consumers said the lower court abruptly decertified the class. "As in any case where, before trial, the identity of purchasers may not be clear from the defendant's records, matching transactions to purchasers is a matter for post-trial administration," the consumers argued. The case traces back to 2011, accusing Apple of violating antitrust law by monopolizing the distribution of apps on its devices through policies requiring the use of the App Store and its in-app payment system where the tech giant collects commissions of up to 30%. The allegations are similar to those being brought by video game developer Epic Games against both Apple and Google. The consumer case previously took a trip all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in 2019 that iPhone users have standing to sue under federal antitrust law that permits damages claims only for customers who purchase directly from the alleged lawbreaker. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers certified a nationwide class last year for individuals who have spent $10 or more on iOS applications or in-app purchases since 2008. The Ninth Circuit later rejected Apple's bid for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification. But in October, the judge granted Apple's motion for decertification, noting that when she certified the class, she had warned the consumers about finding a reasonable way to determine whether and to what extent consumers were harmed. She also said she had been assured the consumers' experts could match Apple ID accounts with actual consumers to prove consumer harm, which turned out not to be the case. In their petition for review, the consumers said all that matters for class certification is calculating the overcharge on every App Store transaction on a classwide basis, and they argued it's not necessary to match the transactions to individual class members until after trial. Apple responded that Judge Gonzalez Rogers gave the consumers "every chance" to establish a way to show injury through common evidence across the class but said they were consistently unable to do so. Representatives for Apple and the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. The consumer class is represented by Betsy C. Manifold, Rachele R. Byrd, Mark C. Rifkin, Matthew M. Guiney and Thomas H. Burt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, and David C. Frederick, Aaron M. Panner, Alex P. Treiger, Caroline A. Schechinger, Kyle M. Wood and Kelley C. Schiffman of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC. Apple is represented by Cynthia E. Richman, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Daniel G. Swanson, Blaine H. Evanson, Bradley J. Hamburger, Caeli A. Higney, Julian W. Kleinbrodt, Matt Aidan Getz, Eli M. Lazarus and Harry R.S. Phillips of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The case is Pepper et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 25-7122, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Dec 1

3 min

Paul, Weiss is advising intelligent power management company Eaton on the tax-free spin-off of its vehicle and e-mobility segments (together, the Mobility Group) into an independent public company. The Mobility Group provides mission- and safety-critical engineered solutions that create, distribute and optimize power for all types of vehicles and propulsion systems. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed. The spin-off is expected to complete by the end of the first quarter of 2027, subject to customary closing conditions. The Paul, Weiss team is led by corporate partners Dotun Obadina and Steven Williams, and includes partners John Kennedy and Patricia Vaz de Almeida; intellectual property partners Bonnie Chen and Marisa Geiger; executive compensation partners Matthew Friestedt and Christopher Gonnella.

Jan 26

1 min

Paul, Weiss is advising Clark Capital Management Group, Inc., a Philadelphia-based asset management firm with over $46 billion in assets under management, in its acquisition by Raymond James Financial, Inc., a financial services company with $1.77 trillion in total client assets. Under the terms of the transaction, Clark Capital will maintain its brand and become an independent boutique investment manager within Raymond James Investment Management, a global asset management company and division of Raymond James Financial. The deal is expected to close by the third quarter of 2026, subject to customary closing conditions. The Paul, Weiss team is led by corporate partners David Hepp and Matthew Collin, tax partner Lindsay Parks and executive compensation partners Christopher Gonnella, and includes corporate partners Aaron Schlaphoff, Jarryd Anderson and Steven Kaye, and counsel Martin Ziessler; executive compensation partner Matthew Friestedt; intellectual property partner Jonathan Ashtor; antitrust counsel Todd Hahn; and litigation counsel Audrey Paquet.

Jan 15

1 min