Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintiffdefendantlitigationmalpractice
settlementcivil procedure

Related Cases

Hackett v. Village Court Associates, 602 F.Supp. 856, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,054
View Case »
In re International Systems and Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 732, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,036
View Case »
In re International Systems and Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 732, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,036
View Case »
Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1719
View Case »
Knight v. Aqui, 966 F.Supp.2d 989
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 230 F.R.D. 317, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,837

Facts

The Denney Plaintiffs, along with others, alleged that Jenkens & Gilchrist and other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and were liable for various claims including fraud and professional malpractice. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants marketed a tax shelter strategy involving foreign currency options, which they knew lacked economic substance and would be invalidated by the IRS. The plaintiffs entered into these transactions based on the defendants' representations that the strategies were legitimate and received opinion letters from Jenkens asserting the same.

This case arises out of tax and consulting services offered by several professional law and accounting firms.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the class could be certified under Rule 23 and whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.

The threshold issue, before undertaking any consideration of the fairness of the settlement, is whether the class may be certified under Rule 23.

Rule

The court applied the requirements of Rule 23, which include numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, as well as the predominance of common issues over individual issues for class certification.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification.

Analysis

The court found that the class met the numerosity requirement as there were over 1,100 clients involved, and that common questions of law and fact predominated, including the legitimacy of the tax advice provided by Jenkens. The court also determined that the typicality and adequacy requirements were satisfied, as the claims of the named plaintiffs were aligned with those of the class members. The settlement was deemed fair after considering the complexity of the litigation and the risks involved.

The common questions in this case are overwhelming. All members of the class received legal advice from Jenkens concerning the tax strategies.

Conclusion

The court certified the class and approved the settlement, concluding that it was fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Class certified; settlement approved.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court certified the class and approved the settlement, allowing them to recover from the settlement fund.

Class Counsel and Jenkens began settlement discussions in November 2003.

You must be