Outten v. Wilmington Trust Corp.
281 F.R.D. 193
D. Del.2012Background
- Two ERISA class actions (Outten and Gray) against Wilmington Trust seek consolidation and lead counsel appointment.
- Court has jurisdiction under ERISA § 502(e)(1); actions involve fiduciary duty and imprudence theories relating to the Plan.
- Plaintiffs allege imprudent management of Plan assets, including real estate-related lending and misreporting reserves, affecting thousands of participants.
- Plaintiffs move for consolidation, a consolidated master file, and lead counsel structure; Gray also seeks interim co-lead and liaison counsel.
- Consolidation discussed alongside competing leadership structures; the court evaluates work done, leadership format, and experience.
- Court grants Gray’s consolidation and leadership structure (interim co-lead SS&B and Egleston; liaison Bodnar) and denies Outten’s solo-lead proposal at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to consolidate the ERISA actions. | Gray favors consolidation to streamline proceedings. | Defendants did not oppose consolidation; efficiency supports consolidation. | Consolidation approved. |
| What interim leadership structure should oversee the consolidated action. | Gray proposes interim co-lead counsel with liaison counsel for manageability. | Outten argues for a single firm to streamline leadership. | Gray structure approved: interim co-lead SS&B and Egleston with Bodnar as liaison. |
| Which counsel best satisfies Rule 23(g)-like considerations for lead counsel in this ERISA action. | Gray Counsel have greater ERISA/class-action experience and track record. | Outten Counsel have substantial work and potential leadership, though less ERISA depth. | Gray Counsel deemed better to serve the class. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litig., 225 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (lead counsel structure evaluated; supports multi-firm leadership under certain conditions)
- Nowak v. Ford Motor Co., 240 F.R.D. 355 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (Rule 23(g) factors guide interim lead counsel selection in ERISA actions)
- In re Delphi ERISA Litig., 230 F.R.D. 496 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (application of Rule 23(g) to interim leadership in ERISA actions)
- In re Marsh ERISA Litig., 265 F.R.D. 128 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (supports considering leadership structure and experience in large ERISA actions)
- In re AOL Time Warner ERISA Litig., No official reporter provided here (S.D.N.Y. 2003-2004) (illustrates leadership decisions in complex ERISA cases)