The City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement v. Anderson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERTA BLOOM, et al., :

: Case No. 2:20-cv-04534

Plaintiffs, :

: CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Vv. :

: Magistrate Judge Jolson

MICHAEL J. ANDERSON, et al., :

Defendants, :

FIRSTENERGY CORP., :

Nominal Defendant. :

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM _:

OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, : Case No. 2:20-cv-04813

Plaintiff, :

Vv. :

CHARLES E, JONES, et al.,

Defendants, :

FIRSTENERGY CORP., :

Nominal Defendant. :

Captions continued on next page.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION :

FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., : Case No. 2:20-cv-05128

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants,

FIRSTENERGY CORP.,

Nominal Defendant.

MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS :

PENSION FUND, : Case No. 2:20-cv-05237

Plaintiff,

v

CHARLES E, JONES, et al.,

Defendants,

FIRSTENERGY CORP.,

Nominal Defendant.

Captions continued on next page.

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD :

OF PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT, : Case No. 2:20-cv-05529

Plaintiff,

MICHAEL J. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants,

FIRSTENERGY CORP.,

Nominal Defendant.

JAMES ATHERTON, :

: Case No. 2:20-cv-05610

Plaintiff, :

MICHAEL J. DOWLING, et al.,

Defendants,

FIRSTENERGY CORP.,

Nominal Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

In July 2020, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio filed criminal charges

(“Criminal Complaint”) against Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Householder

(“Householder”), and four other individuals. They were charged for their involvement in

orchestrating a $60 million bribery and racketeering scheme with FirstEnergy Corp.

(“FirstEnergy” or the “Company”) and passing “bailout” legislation that favored the Company.

Following these charges, FirstEnergy shareholders filed numerous lawsuits to hold the wrongdoers

accountable, including multiple derivative actions against the Company’s directors and certain

officers.

Currently before the Court are three motions to consolidate these derivative actions.

Specifically, Plaintiffs Employees Retirement System of The City of St. Louis (“St. Louis

Employees” or “St. Louis”), Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. (“Electrical

Workers”), and The City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement (“Philadelphia

Pensions” or “Philadelphia”) have each submitted motions to consolidate. (No. 2:20-04813, ECF

No. 24; No. 2:20-05128, ECF No. 3; No. 2:20-05529, ECF No. 3). The cases subject to these

motions include: Bloom v. Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-04534 (S.D. Ohio); Employees Retirement

System of the City of St. Louis v, Jones, No. 2:20-cv-04813 (S.D. Ohio); Electrical Workers

Pension Fund, Local 103, 1B. E.W. v, Anderson, No. 2:20-cvy-05128 (S.D. Ohio); Massachusetts

Laborers Pension Fund v, Jones, No. 2:20-cv-05237 (S.D. Ohio); The City of. Philadelphia Board

of Pensions and Retirement v. Anderson, No, 2:20-cv-05529 (S.D. Ohio); and Atherton v. Dowling,

No. 2:20-cv-05610 (S.D. Ohio) (together, the “Derivative Actions”).!

Also before the Court are competing motions to appoint Lead Plaintiff and appoint Lead

Counsel. On one side, St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers ask the Court to appoint

' St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers moved for consolidation on October 2, 2020, before

Philadelphia Pensions and Atherton filed their derivative actions on October 21, 2020 and November 2,

2020, respectively. (Compare No. 2:20-04813, ECF No. 24, and No. 2:20-05128, ECF No. 3, with No.

2:20-05529, ECF No. 1, and No. 2:20-05610, ECF No. 1). Similarly, Philadelphia filed its motion for

consolidation before Atherton v. Dowling was filed. Because this Court has determined these cases are

related, and because no party has opposed consolidation, the Court includes these cases in its consolidation

analysis.

Three plaintiffs have also voluntarily dismissed their derivative actions since the motions to consolidate

were filed, Accordingly, the following cases are no longer under consideration for consolidation: Stavely v.

Anderson, No, 2:20-cv-04598 (S.D. Ohio); Beck v. Anderson, No, 2:20-cv-05020 (8.D. Ohio); and Sarnelli

v. Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-05192 (S.D. Ohio).

themselves as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and their lawyers as Co-Lead Counsel. (No. 2:20-04813, ECF

No. 24; No. 2:20-05128, ECF No. 3). On the other, Philadelphia Pensions requests to be designated

Lead Plaintiff and seeks to have its counsel designated as Lead Counsel. (No. 2:20-05529, ECF

No. 3).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS St. Louis Employees’, Electrical

Workers’, and Philadelphia Pensions’ motions to consolidate. (No, 2:20-04813, ECF No. 24; No.

2:20-05128, ECF No. 3; No. 2:20-05529, ECF No. 3). Additionally, the Court GRANTS St, Louis

Employees’ Motion to Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel [#24];

GRANTS Electrical Workers’ Motion to Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Appoint Co-Lead

Counsel [#3]; and DENIES Philadelphia Pensions’ Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and

Appointment of Lead Counsel [#3].

Il. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Taking the facts as stated by Plaintiffs, these derivative actions have been brought against

the directors and certain officers of FirstEnergy for their role in a large bribery and money-

laundering scandal that implicated Ohio politicians. FirstEnergy is an Ohio-based utility company

that generates and transmits electricity to approximately 6 million customers in seven states. (2:20-

ev-05128, Pl.’s Compl. § 56, ECF No. 1). In late 2016, FirstEnergy was under significant financial

strain because two of its aging nuclear power plants had become financially unsustainable. (2:20-

cv-04813, PI.’s Compl. { 2, ECF No. 1). FirstEnergy informed its investors that it was seeking

“legislative solutions” for these problematic plants. (id).

Meanwhile, Householder was running for an Ohio House of Representatives seat that he

previously held but resigned from in 2004 due to allegations of receiving improper campaign

contributions in exchange for legislation. (/d. at 3). His bid was successful; he was elected to the

Ohio House in November 2016 and took office on January 3, 2017. (id). A few days after he

assumed office, FirstEnergy flew Householder to Washington, D.C. on its private jet so that he

could attend the presidential inauguration. (Jd). Within two months of this trip, Householder

established to a 501(c)(4) entity called “Generation Now,” and FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries

began making clandestine quarterly payments of $250,000 to it. (Id). According to a Householder

co-conspirator, Generation Now was structured to be opaque so that donors could “give as much

or more to the (c)(4) and nobody would ever know.” (No. 2:20-cv-05237, Pl.’s Compl. □ 81-82,

ECF No. 1). Householder used the FirstEnergy funds to support his campaign for Speaker of the

House, to support other House candidates who were his allies, and for his own personal use.

Householder was re-elected as Speaker of the House in January 2019. (/d. at J 84). Over time,

FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries paid tens millions of dollars to various entities controlled by

Householder, including Generation Now, under the guise of donations. (2:20-cv-04813, Pl.’s

Compl. J 4, ECF No. 1).

Shortly after Householder became Speaker, House Bill 6 (“HB6”) was introduced in the

Ohio state legislature. (/d.). The legislature then passed the bill in July 2019, and Ohio Governor

Mike DeWine signed it into law. (/d.). HB6 provided a $1.3 billion bailout to rescue FirstEnergy’s

uncompetitive power plants, (/d. at 95). The bill was funded primarily by monthly ratepayer

surcharges and legislative amendments that removed incentives to build renewable energy

projects, scrapped statewide energy conservation measures, and allowed the Company to upcharge

customers for their energy. (/d.). FirstEnergy executives and Householder communicated

frequently throughout the period that encompassed both Householder’s campaign and election and

HB6’s passage, as was evidenced in the Criminal Complaint. (/d. at 7). The FBI Special Agent

in Charge of the investigation described their collaboration as a “sophisticated criminal conspiracy

to enact legislation” on behalf of FirstEnergy. (7d. at 96).

Even before charges of this misconduct surfaced, the public strongly opposed House Bill

6’s enactment. The bill was criticized as “the worst energy bill of the 21st century,” and a statewide

ballot referendum seeking to repeal it quickly followed. (/d. at 95). FirstEnergy vehemently

opposed the referendum, spending $38 million over the next few months to defeat it. □□□□

Altogether, between funds paid to Householder-controlled entities and the money the Company

spent to fight the referendum, FirstEnergy spent a total of $61 million over three years to secure

the House Bill 6 legislation. (/d.).

Numerous “red flags” dating back to 2015 suggest that FirstEnergy’s directors and officers

knew or should have known about the Company’s misconduct. For example, two nonprofit

research organizations dedicated to corporate accountability reported that FirstEnergy had the

second highest level of political spending relative to its revenue, but ranked only 22nd in

transparency about its political spending. (/d. at { 62). FirstEnergy shareholders also issued formal

proposals at annual proxy meetings in 2015, 2016, and 2017, urging the Company to increase its

transparency and oversight over lobbying and political spending. The Company’s Board

recommended against the proposals each year. (No. 2:20-cv-04813, Pl.’s Compl. ff 63-72, ECF

No. 1). In addition to these indicators, multiple media outlets and watchdog groups reported on

connections between FirstEnergy, Generation Now and other “dark money groups,” and support

for favorable Ohio legislation. (/d. at {§ 87-91, 99-101, 105, 111).

The bribery scheme was exposed on July 21, 2020, when formal criminal charges were

brought against Householder and others, and reports of FirstEnergy’s involvement surfaced soon

thereafter. (/d. at ), The Company’s stock value fell 45% in the aftermath, eliminating billions of

dollars of shareholder value. (/d. at J¥ 12, 135). The Company is currently the subject of ongoing

investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the

Ohio Public Utilities Commission, and the Ohio State Attorney General. (/d). In addition to its

reputational damage, securities analysts estimate the Company faces $500 million worth of future

fines and penalties. (Id. at 7150).

B. Procedural History

Jennifer Miller brought the first derivative action against FirstEnergy’s directors and

officers on August 7, 2020 in the Northern District of Ohio; the case remains in that district today.

Subsequent actions were filed in the Southern District of Ohio, first by Roberta Bloom and two

other individuals on September 1, 2020. Between that date and October 5, 2020, six additional

derivative actions were filed in the Southern District.3 These cases were determined to be related

and assigned to this Court. (See, e.g., No. 2:20-04534, ECF No. 44).

Two of the Plaintiffs in these cases—St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers—filed

motions to consolidate the related derivative actions. Additionally, Plaintiffs Roberta Bloom and

Massachusetts Laborers Pension Fund (“Massachusetts Laborers” or “Massachusetts”) each filed

memoranda in support of the motions to consolidate. (Jd, ECF No. 41; No. 2:20-05237, ECF No.

2 St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers later moved to intervene in this case, seeking to transfer it to

the Southern District of Ohio. (Miller y. Anderson, No. 5:20-cv-01743 (N.D. Ohio), ECF No. 17). Plaintiff

Miller filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion to Transfer (/d. at ECF No. 19), but Defendants

opposed it (Jd. at ECF No. 20). These motions are currently pending before Judge Adams in the Northern

District. (/d.). Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this action for

failure to plead demand futility. (See No. 2:20-cv-05237, ECF No. 19).

3 Those cases include: Stavely v. Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-04598 (S.D. Ohio); Emps. Ret. Sys. of the City of

St. Louis v. Jones, No. 2:20-cv-04813 (S.D. Ohio); Beck v. Anderson, No. 2:20-cev-05020 (S.D, Ohio); Elec.

Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, LB.E.W. v. Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-05128 (S.D. Ohio); Sarnedli v.

Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-05192 (S.D. Ohio); and Mass. Laborers Pension Fund vy. Jones, No. 2:20-cv-05237

(S.D. Ohio).

12). Later, on November 2, 2020, Defendants also filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to

Consolidation of Related Derivative Actions. (/d., ECF No. 19).

In addition to their motions to consolidate, St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers

also filed identical motions asking this Court to appoint themselves as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and to

appoint Co-Lead Counsel (together, the “St. Louis / Electrical Workers Motions”) on October 2,

2020. (No. 2:20-04813, ECF No. 24; No. 2:20-05128, ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs Bloom and

Massachusetts Laborers filed joinders in support the St. Louis / Electrical Workers Motions. (No.

2:20-04534, ECF No. 41; No. 2:20-05237, ECF No. 12). On October 21, 2020, this Court ordered

St. Louis Employees, Electrical Workers, and Massachusetts Laborers to appear at a hearing to

resolve these issues. (See id., ECF No. 9).

Also on October 21, Plaintiff Philadelphia Pensions filed a new derivative action in the

Southern District of Ohio (No. 2:20-05529, ECF No. 1), and the Court determined that it was

related to the other Derivative Actions (/d., ECF No. 4). Philadelphia filed its Motion for

Consolidation, Appointment of Lead Plaintiff, and Appointment of Lead Counsel on October 23,

2020. (id, ECF No. 3). This Court ordered Philadelphia to appear at the previously scheduled

hearing along with St. Louis, Electrical Workers, and Massachusetts Laborers. (No. 2:20-05529,

ECF No. 15).

St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers filed memoranda of law in further support of

their motion to consolidate, appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and appoint Co-Lead Counsel, and in

opposition to Philadelphia Pensions’ competing motion on November 3, 2020. (2:20-cv-04813,

ECF No. 40-1; 2:20-cv-05128, ECF No. 22-1). Massachusetts Laborers filed an affidavit in support

of the St. Louis / Electrical Workers Motions on November 6, 2020. (2:20-cv-04813, ECF No. 42).

Philadelphia Pensions also filed a reply in further support of its motion for consolidation,

appointment of Lead Plaintiff, and appointment of Lead Counsel on November 6, 2020. (2:20-cv-

05529, ECF No. 20).

James Atherton also filed an additional derivative action against the Company’s directors

and officers on October 27, 2020, which was determined to be related to the other Derivative

Actions. (No. 2:20-05610, ECF Nos. 1, 5). Mr. Atherton has not moved for consolidation or

appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Finally, three of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their derivative

actions: on November 2, 2020, Stavely v. Anderson was voluntarily dismissed (No. 2:20-cv-04598,

ECF No. 19); on November 6, 2020, Sarnelli v. Anderson was voluntarily dismissed; and on

November 9, 2020 (No. 2:20-cv-05192, ECF No. 38); and Beck v. Anderson was voluntarily

dismissed (No. 2:20-05020, ECF No. 32).

In sum, there are currently six derivative actions before the Southern District of Ohio.

Three of the Plaintiffs in these actions request the Court to consolidate the cases, two support

consolidation, and none opposes. Additionally, two candidates for Lead Plaintiff have emerged:

(1) St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs; and (2) Philadelphia

Pensions. Both candidates also seek appointment of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

Ill. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Consolidation

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes consolidation of actions that

involve a common question of law or fact. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 412 (6th

Cir, 1998). The underlying purpose of Rule 42 is to “administer the court’s business with

expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties.” Rice v. Javitch Block & Rathbone,

LLP, No. 2:04-cv-00951, 2012 WL 506833, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2012) (citing Advey v.

Celotex, Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1181 (6th Cir. 1992)). Consolidation under Rule 42 falls within the

10

discretion of the Court. Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993). To determine

whether consolidation is appropriate, courts consider a number of factors, including the risks of

prejudice to the parties and jury confusion, the burden on the parties and available judicial

resources, and the time and expense of litigating a single suit as compared to multiple suits. Guild

Assocs., Inc. v. Bio-Energy (Washington), LLC, 309 F.D.R. 436 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2015).

Here, three of the six Plaintiffs have requested the Court to consolidate all of the Derivative

Actions in the Southern District, two Plaintiffs have filed joinders in support of consolidation,

Defendants have filed a notice of non-opposition to consolidation, and no party has opposed

consolidation. Moreover, the Derivative Actions involve the same operative facts and the same

alleged violation of fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by FirstEnergy’s directors and

officers. Given these commonalities, the Court finds that consolidation will promote judicial

economy and conserve the parties’ resources by preventing the duplicative motions, discovery,

and trials that would result from litigating each action separately. The Court also finds that

consolidation is unlikely to prejudice the rights of any party. The Court therefore GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate the Derivative Actions.

B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a derivative action may only be maintained if

the plaintiff “fairly and adequately represent{s] the interests of shareholders . . . who are similarly

situated in enforcing the rights of the corporation.” FED. R. CIv. P. 23.1(a). Here, there is no doubt

that the Plaintiffs seeking appointment could each fairly and adequately represent the shareholders’

interests. Instead, the Court must determine whether to appoint a lead plaintiff, and if so, who will

best serve shareholder interests. The Court must also consider the parties’ requests to appoint Lead

Counsel.

11

No statutory authority exists for the appointment of lead plaintiff or lead counsel in

shareholder derivative actions. Courts, however, have the inherent “authority to appoint a lead

plaintiff . . . in a derivative action in order to create an efficient case-management structure.” N.

Miami Beach Gen. Emps. Ret. Fund, No. 10 C 6514, 2011 WL 12465137, at *1—2 (N.D. IIL. July

5, 2011) (appointing a lead plaintiff to prevent potential “disagreements and inefficiencies”); see

also Horn v. Raines, 227 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2005) (appointing a lead plaintiff because it was

“necessary to provide for an orderly litigation”); KBC Asset Mgmt. NV ex rel. Chemed Corp. v.

McNamara, 78 F, Supp. 3d 599, 603 (D. Del. 2015) (appointing a lead plaintiff to create “an

efficient, streamlined structure” for litigating the derivative actions”). It is also well established

that the Court may appoint a leadership structure of plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate the

prosecution of complex litigation. Jn re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 297 (6th Cir. 1988).

When courts in the Southern District of Ohio are called upon to appoint a lead plaintiff or

lead counsel in derivative action cases, they consider several criteria, including: “[(i)] the quality

of the pleadings; (ii) the vigorousness of the prosecution; (iii) the shareholder plaintiffs that have

the largest economic stakes in the litigation; and (iv) the competence of counsel.” In re The

Wendy’s Co. S’holder Derivative Litig., No. 1:16-cv-1153, 2018 WL 6605394, at *2 (S.D. Ohio

Dec. 17, 2018) (citing Fep. R. Crv. P. 23(g)). Courts seek to appoint the leadership structure that

“will best serve the interest of the plaintiffs,” so efficiency is also a key consideration. /d.

Moreover, Courts do not give special weight to a derivative action “simply by virtue of having

been filed earlier than any other pending action.” Hirt v. U.S. Timberlands Serv. Co., LLC, No.

CIV.A. 19575, 2002 WL 1558342, at *3 (Del. Ch. July 3, 2002) (citing TWC Tech. Lid. P'ship v.

Intermedia Commce’ns, Inc., C.A. No 18336-CC, 2000 WL 1654504, at *3 (Del. Ch. Oct. 17,

2000)).

12

1. Quality of the Pleadings and Vigorousness of the Prosecution

Quality of the pleadings is a factor in appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel to the extent

that it helps to identify the leadership team that will prosecute the claims on behalf of the various

plaintiffs with the greatest vigor. See In re Wendy’s, 2018 WL 6605394, at *2.

Here, this factor does not favor any particular plaintiff, law firm, or attorney. Both

candidates for lead plaintiff demonstrate their vigorousness in investigating FirstEnergy’s

misconduct and in illuminating new facts through their high-quality pleadings. St. Louis

Employees and Electrical Workers highlight their work in exposing shareholder proposals that

show FirstEnergy’s corporate leaders had notice of Company misconduct for multiple years. (No.

2:20-cv-04813, ECF No. 24 at 12-13). Their Complaints also include allegations that show

additional benefits the Company received from the bribery scheme and additional injuries it

experienced after the scheme was disclosed to the public. (/d), Philadelphia Pensions calls

attention to its work in including facts set forth by a whistleblower, including the whistleblower’s

counterclaims alleging that the Company unlawfully retaliated against him. (No. 2:20-cv-05529,

ECF No. 3-2 at 13-15). Each of these findings is important to the ongoing litigation. While it is

true that the candidates for lead plaintiff emphasize different aspects of the underlying facts, their

Complaints present substantially similar allegations. The Court finds that both candidates set forth

sufficiently detailed Complaints and demonstrate they will vigorously prosecute the action on

behalf of all shareholders.

2. Economic Stake in the Litigation

In the context of shareholder derivative actions, economic stake matters in so far as it has

“some relevance to the plaintiff's interest in [the] action and the likelihood that the plaintiff will

pursue the claims vigorously.” McNamara, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 604. When considering leadership

13

structures in derivative actions, “the relative economic stakes of the competing litigations in the

outcome of the lawsuit” should be “accorded great weight.” In re Wendy’s, 2018 WL 6605394, at

*2 (quoting Kubiak v. Barbas, No. 3:11-cv-141, 2011 WL 2443715, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 14,

2011) (internal quotations omitted)). Relative economic stake, however, is not a simple question

of which candidate possesses the largest number of stock shares. In re Foundry Networks, Inc.

Derivative Litig., No. C-06-05598, 2007 WL 485974, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007) (“[T]here is

no presumption in favor of selecting the plaintiff with the largest financial stake as there is in cases

under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. ...”). Rather, “the test is the relative size of

the shares.” Kubiak, 2011 WL 2443715, at *2; see also Wiehl vy. Eon Labs, No. Civ. A. 1116-N,

2005 WL 696764, at *2 (Del. Ch. Mar. 22, 2005) (selecting an individual plaintiff with 1,350

shares over plaintiffs with 11,400 shares when the company had 116.9 million outstanding shares).

For economic stake to be a decisive factor, the proposed lead plaintiff must demonstrate “a

substantial relative difference” in its stake over that of the other lead plaintiff candidate. Wiehl,

2005 WL 696764, at *2 (emphasis added).

St. Louis Employees holds 7,500 shares of FirstEnergy stock, worth $217,500, and has

been a continuous holder since February 2015. Electrical Workers hold 17,393 shares, worth

$504,397, and has been a continuous holder since at least January 2017. Combined, the two

candidates for Co-Lead Plaintiffs hold 24,893 shares of FirstEnergy stock.* Beyond their holdings,

neither St. Louis nor Electrical Workers has alleged specific already-incurred losses, and the extent

4 St. Louis and Electrical Workers submit that Massachusetts Laborers’ shares also factor into their

economic stake in the litigation because Massachusetts Laborers filed a joinder in support of the St. Louis

/ Electrical Workers Motions. Because Massachusetts Laborers currently owns 19,274 shares of

FirstEnergy stock (No. 2:20-cv-04813, ECF No. 42), St. Louis and Electrical Workers present 44,167 shares

as their total financial interest in FirstEnergy. The Court does not adopt this calculation. Though true that

Massachusetts Laborers has expressed its support of the St. Louis / Electrical Workers Motions and its

willingness to cooperate with the proposed Co-Lead Counsel, Massachusetts did not request to be

considered as an additional Co-Lead Plaintiff.

14

to which their investments have fluctuated or experienced loss due to the Company’s misconduct

is not yet clear.

Philadelphia Pensions holds 35,579 shares, worth over $1 million, and has maintained

nearly 29,000 shares since January 2017. In addition to these holdings, Philadelphia also describes

losses that it has already sustained due to the lost value in FirstEnergy that resulted from the

Company’s misconduct. Specifically, Philadelphia asserts it lost approximately $378,000 using a

Last In First Out (“LIFO”) basis through its FirstEnergy stock transactions between March 2017

and August 2020.°

St. Louis and Electrical Workers argue that the Court should not aggregate the losses

Philadelphia Pensions incurred from these stock transactions with the value of their stock shares

to determine Philadelphia’s economic stake. They argue that such losses are an irrelevant metric

here because derivative actions seek to hold defendants responsible for harm caused to the

corporation and not to the shareholders themselves, Philadelphia Pensions, on the other hand,

argues that these losses demonstrate its strong interest in prosecuting the case.

Courts consider the relative economic stakes of candidates for lead plaintiff because a

substantial difference in those stakes may indicate that one candidate is more likely to litigate the

claims vigorously. McNamara, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 604. To do so, many courts examine the

magnitude of each candidate’s ownership of company stock as it compares to (1) the total number

> Under the “LIFO” method, “a plaintiff's sales of the defendant’s stock during the class period are matched

against the last shares purchased, resulting in an off-set of class-period gains from a plaintiff's ultimate

losses.” In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig., 226 F.R.D, 298, 303 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2005) (quoting

Thompson vy. Shaw Grp., No. Civ.A.04-1685, 2004 WL 2988503, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2004)).

Philadelphia Pensions also describes approximately $728,000 of losses calculated on a First In First Out

(“FIFO”) basis. This Court, however, has indicated its preference for using the LIFO calculation in the

context of calculating economic loss in securities class actions under the Public Securities Litigation

Reform Act, because “the focal point of inquiry must begin . . . with purchases or sales—or both—during

[the] class period.” Jd. (quoting In re Comdisco Sec. Litig., No. 01 C 2110, 2004 WL 905938, at *3 (N.D.

Ill. Apr. 26, 2004)). The Court therefore does not factor the FIFO losses into its analysis.

15

of outstanding shares of the corporation, or (2) the size of the candidate’s overall holdings or

portfolio. See Freeman ex rel. Tesla, Inc. v. Musk, 324 F.R.D. 73, 85 (D. Del. 2018); see also

Kubiak, 2011 WL 2443715, at *2; Wiehl, 2005 WL 696764, at *3. The Court does not find any

example of LIFO losses factoring into the economic stake analysis of prospective lead plaintiffs

in derivative actions. And neither candidate has offered evidence about the size of their overall

portfolios. The Court therefore limits its analysis to the candidates’ FirstEnergy shares as they

compare to the Company’s outstanding shares.

FirstEnergy has more than 540 million shares of common stock outstanding. (No. 2:20-

cv-04813, Pl.’s Compl. | 20, ECF No. 1). Each candidate for Lead Plaintiff holds a small fraction

of this outstanding stock: St. Louis Employees’ and Electrical Workers’ holdings constitute a

0.0046% stake in the Company, and Philadelphia Pensions’ holdings amount to a 0.0066% stake.

The Court finds that this is not a substantial relative difference in economic stake. Wieh/, 2005 WL

696764, at *3 (selecting an individual plaintiff with the smallest number of shares over institutional

investors to serve as lead plaintiff, noting that “even the largest plaintiff owns only 0.065% of [the

company’s shares. Its stake is simply not large enough to demonstrate a substantial relative

difference that would require the court to give this factor greater weight. ...”). The Court therefore

concludes that this factor does not favor either candidate for Lead Plaintiff.

3. Competence of Counsel

In appointing a leadership structure of plaintiffs’ counsel, Courts consider the credentials

and resumes of the attorneys, their access to resources, and their drive to litigate the case on behalf

of the plaintiffs. In re Wendy’s Co., 2018 WL 6605394, at *2. Experience litigating derivative

actions and leading corporate governance improvement is especially “relevant and helpful” to

cases whose complaints request corporate governance reforms, as they do here. /d. Likewise,

16

counsel’s ability to “make inclusive efforts on behalf of all plaintiffs” is an “essential attribute”

for lead counsel when a case involves multiple parties. Id. (quoting Kubiak, 2011 WL 2443715, at

*2).

In the case sub judice, St. Louis Employees and Electrical Workers seek to appoint Saxena

White P.A. (“Saxena White”) and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“Bernstein

Litowitz”) as Co-Lead Counsel and the Law Offices of John C. Camillus LLC (“Camillus”) as

Liaison Counsel. Philadelphia Pensions seeks to appoint Berger Montague PC (“Berger

Montague”) as Lead Counsel and the law firm of O’Connor, Haseley & Wilhelm as Liaison

Counsel. Each of these attorneys has impressive resumes, experience litigating complex civil

cases, access to the resources necessary to prosecute the claims at issue, and the zeal to litigate this

case on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Court chooses here only because the parties have requested it

to do so.

The Court finds that the circumstances of this case favor appointing St. Louis Employees’

and Electrical Workers’ counsel. Saxena White and Bernstein Litowitz both have considerable

track records of successfully prosecuting shareholder derivative actions, including one against

FirstEnergy, and using derivative action litigation to produce corporate governance reforms. For

example, the two firms worked together to prosecute a derivative action on behalf of New Senior

Investment and achieved a settlement of $53 million. Cumming v. Edens, C.A. No. 13007-VCS

(Del. Ch,). They cite this victory as the largest derivative action settlement as a percentage of

market capitalization in the Delaware Court of Chancery and one of the top ten derivative action

settlements in the history of the Chancery Court. (No. 2:20-cv-04813, ECF No.24 at 17—18). In

addition to the monetary recovery, the New Senior Board agreed to amend the company’s bylaws

and certificate of incorporation to improve board member independence. Saxena White and

17

Bernstein Litowitz also worked together to litigate shareholder derivative actions as co-lead

counsel in Jn re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (No. 10-cv-00990-ER (D. Del.)) and Jn re

Rayonier Securities Litigation (No. 3:14-cv-1395-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.)), securing large

settlements in both.

Additionally, in 2016, Saxena White litigated a derivative action on behalf of Wells Fargo

& Company (“Wells Fargo”), achieving a $320 million settlement and requiring Wells Fargo to

improve its internal controls, reporting mechanisms, and risk management oversight. Saxena

White represents that this was the largest insurer-funded monetary component of any shareholder

derivative settlement in history. (No. 2:20-cv-04813, ECF No.24 at 26). Bernstein Litowitz won a

$25 million recovery and effectuated corporate governance changes in a derivative action against

FirstEnergy’s Board of Directors in 2004. The two firms have also won numerous securities class

actions. Furthermore, Proposed Liaison Counsel John Camillus, has “extensive experience

representing plaintiffs in securities and derivative matters, and is familiar with Ohio corporate law

and rules of procedure.” Kubiak, 2011 WL 2443715, at *2.

This Court is also impressed by Saxena White and Bernstein Litowitz because their

proposed leadership team, which is comprised of nine lawyers, includes five women and at least

two minority lawyers. (See 2:20-cv-04813, ECF No. 24-1 at 107-117). The firms at large are also

diverse: Saxena White is a federally-certified, minority- and women-owned firm, and both firms’

associate groups consist of women and lawyers of color at above-average ratios. The Court looks

favorably upon such compositions because, whenever possible, the Court strives to “appoint a

diverse leadership team that is representative of the diversity of the [p]laintiffs.” In re Zantac

(Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2020 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 81742, at *26-27. The FirstEnergy

shareholders who bring this action—including the constituents of St. Louis Employees, Electrical

18

Workers, Massachusetts Laborers, Philadelphia Pensions, and others—encompass a broad range

of individuals who are diverse in ethnicity, race, and gender. Here, Lead Counsel will represent a

large and heterogeneous group of investors, and the Court finds that the diverse team put forth by

Saxena White and Bernstein Litowitz best reflects the plaintiffs’ diversity and is best suited to act

on their behalf.

Moreover, Philadelphia Pension’s Proposed Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel have less

collective experience litigating derivative actions. Berger Montague has litigated securities class

actions on behalf of public institutional investors, but it cites just two cases as examples of

successfully prosecuting corporate governance and derivative actions. (Compare ECF No. 3-2 at

22—26 with ECF No. 3-2 at 14—15). Proposed Liaison Counsel O’Connor, Haseley & Wilhelm

focuses its practice on Governmental, Administrative, Municipal, and Business Law.

Philadelphia Pensions argues that its proposed leadership structure is better poised to

litigate the derivative action efficiently because it suggests one lead plaintiff and a single lead

counsel to steer the case. Specifically, Philadelphia cites courts that have indicated a preference

for a lead counsel consisting of one firm as “more efficient and effective.” See, e.g., In re. Gas

Natural, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02805, 2014 WL 12591684, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2014) (finding

the appointment of multiple law firms “poses the potential for confusion as well as duplicative

services and an unnecessary increase in fees.”); Kubiak, 2011 WL 2443715 at *2 (declining to

appoint multiple attorneys because “it is essential to have one voice”).

This Court takes seriously concerns about the potential for inefficient litigation and

confusion but finds that they are not warranted in this case. Saxena White and Bernstein Litowitz

have worked together to litigate shareholder derivative actions as co-lead counsel on at least three

occasions and have achieved favorable results in cach, as documented above. In light of their

19

demonstrated success in working together as co-lead counsel, this Court is confident that the two

firms will be able to speak with one voice and coordinate appropriately to streamline procedure

and avoid unnecessary expense.

The Court also notes that the Saxena White and Bernstein Litowitz have endeavored to be

inclusive in this litigation with other institutional investors and their respective counsel, which is

an important attribute for lead counsel. In re Wendy’s, 2018 WL 6605394, at *2; see also In re

Wells Fargo & Co. S’holder Derivative Litig., No. 16-cv-05541, 2017 WL 130282, at *3 (N.D.

Cal. Jan. 12, 2017) (recognizing counsel’s work in organizing a complex action with multiple

complaints and law firms as rendering the “outset of this litigation more efficient for both the

parties and the Court”). Massachusetts Laborers filed a joinder in support of the St. Louis /

Electrical Workers Motions, agreeing “to work cooperatively at the direction of proposed Co-Lead

Counsel” and requesting the Court to appoint Saxena White and Bernstein Litowitz as Co-Lead

Counsel. (No. 2:20-05237, ECF No. 6 at 5—6). Similarly, Plaintiffs and individual investors

Roberta Bloom, Joan Randell, and Arlene Pogolowitz also filed a joinder in support of the St.

Louis / Electrical Workers Motions and agreed to work with proposed lead counsel cooperatively.

(No. 2:20-04534, ECF No. 41 at 5). These agreements signify the parties’ trust in Proposed Co-

Lead Counsel’s ability to speak and advocate for the entire group of plaintiffs and to litigate the

case expeditiously.

On balance, the Court finds that Saxena White, Bernstein Litowitz, and Camillus are best

suited to serve as Lead Counsel for this derivative action.

20

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the Derivative Actions present the same questions of fact and law, and

that consolidation supports judicial economy and efficiency. The Court also concludes Plaintiff St.

Louis Employees and Electrical Workers are best suited to represent the shareholders in this case,

and appoints their chosen counsel to serve as Co-Lead Counsel. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate. (No. 2:20-04813, ECF No. 24; No. 2:20-05128, ECF No. 3; No.

2:20-05529, ECF No, 3); GRANTS St. Louis Employees’ Motion to Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs

and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel [#24]; GRANTS Electrical Workers’ Motion to Appoint Co-Lead

Plaintiffs and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel [#3]; and DENIES Philadelphia Pension’s Motion for

Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Appointment of Lead Counsel [#3].

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 _- Q/

ALGENON J. MARBLEY_—---—--—~"

CHIEF TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: November 16, 2020

21