For the First Circuit
No. 98-2139
RICHARD DUHAIME, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
Defendants, Appellees,
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM,
Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O'Toole,
Jr.,
Before
Selya, Boudin, and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
Brian Wolfman, with
whom Alan B. Morrison and Public Citizen Litigation Group, were
on brief for appellant.
John G. Fabiano, with
whom Peter A. Spaeth, Hale and Dorr LLP, Ralph C. Ferrara,
Edwin G. Schallert, and Debevoise & Plimpton, were on brief
for appellees.
STAHL, Circuit Judge. This appeal is an offshoot of a massive securities fraud,
fraud, and breach of fiduciary duties class-action lawsuit brought against John
Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, John Hancock Variable Life Insurance
Company, and John Hancock Distributors, Inc. (collectively "John
Hancock"). The underlying suit, filed in September 1995 on behalf of
nearly four million present and former policyholders, challenged a number of
John Hancock's sales and marketing practices from 1979 through the mid-1990s.
On
After the details of the proposed settlement were
communicated to the class in late June 1997, seventy-seven absent class members
(i.e., class members not named as parties) came forward and filed written
objections. Among the objectors were appellant Howard M. Metzenbaum and sixteen
policyholders represented by attorney Diane Nygaard. We follow the lead of the
parties and refer to the Nygaard-led group as the "Rose Objectors."
Metzenbaum initially took issue with various aspects of the class notice and
with the structure of the proposed counsel-fees award, but after negotiating
changes to the notice procedures that satisfied his concerns in this area, he
chose to press only his counsel-fees objection. The Rose Objectors filed
sweeping objections to nearly all aspects of the proposed settlement. On
Shortly after the district court approved the settlement,
Attorney Nygaard, acting on behalf of the Rose Objectors, filed a request for
counsel fees in the district court and a notice of appeal from the court's
approval of the settlement. When Metzenbaum's counsel learned of the appeal, he
telephoned Nygaard and asked that she serve him with copies of the appellate
briefs. Nygaard agreed to put Metzenbaum's counsel on the service list, but
added that the appeal soon would be settled on "very, very good"
terms for her clients. Shortly thereafter, the Rose Objectors withdrew with
prejudice both their appeal and their still-pending request for counsel fees.
At this point, Metzenbaum became concerned that something
was amiss because the Rose Objectors apparently had secured a side settlement
more favorable than the class settlement and no court had evaluated the
fairness of the side settlement. In Metzenbaum's view (elaborated below), a
post-judgment settlement of this nature violates both the letter and spirit of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e): "A class action shall not be dismissed or
compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed
dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such
manner as the court directs." See also In re General
Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig.,
55 F.3d 768, 804-19 (3d Cir. 1995) (Rule 23(e) scrutiny entails a detailed
inquiry into whether the proposed class action settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate). Metzenbaum's counsel wrote to Nygaard, class counsel, and John
Hancock's counsel, advising them that the side settlement should be presented
to the district court and asking for disclosure of its terms. Counsel for the
so-called "settling parties" responded that disclosure and approval
were not required under the circumstances. The responses indicated that, in
addition to resolving the claims of the Rose Objectors, the side settlement
also resolved claims of other clients of Attorney Nygaard who had opted out of
the class. The responses did not, however, disclose the terms of the side
settlement or even the parties to the side settlement. Metzenbaum suggests that
class counsel, as well as John Hancock, may have been involved in negotiating
the side settlement, and we accept the suggestion for purposes of this appeal.
Metzenbaum then served discovery on John Hancock, Nygaard,
and class counsel, but received replies stating that the discovery requests
were untimely and that, as an absent class member, he was not a
"party" entitled to discovery. Consequently, Metzenbaum moved the
district court to compel post-judgment discovery under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37 and, in the event the court did not regard him as a party entitled
to discovery, to permit him to intervene as a party under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 24. In making his motion, Metzenbaum informed the court that, should the
requested discovery reveal a substantial difference between the side settlement
with the Rose Objectors and the settlement offered to the class, he would file
a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) asking the court either to require John
Hancock to offer the same deal to all class members, including himself, or to
abrogate the Rose Objectors' side settlement and require that the proceeds be
disbursed to the class. John Hancock opposed the motion, pointing out, inter
alia, that the class settlement was entirely unaffected by the side
settlement with the Rose Objectors. The court denied Metzenbaum's motion by
margin order. This appeal, which only John Hancock actively opposes, followed.
In framing their appellate arguments, the parties have
sounded broad themes and taken a number of controversial positions. Metzenbaum
asserts that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) applies even to settlements concluded on
appeal; that in the circumstances presented here, he
was entitled to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 37's enforcement provisions
post-judgment; that absent class members such as himself are
"parties" to class actions entitled to discovery; and alternatively,
that he was entitled to intervene as a party in the district court either as of
right, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), or by court permission, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). John Hancock counters that
Metzenbaum lacked Article III standing in the district court because he failed
to allege an injury in fact, i.e., that he has suffered, or imminently will
suffer, an invasion of a concrete, particularized, and legally protected
interest, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560 (1992); that absent class members are not parties to class actions;
that Metzenbaum's allegations fail to establish an entitlement to intervention,
either as of right or by court permission; and that the district court in any
event properly declined Metzenbaum's request for discovery because the material
sought could provide no basis for upsetting the judgment.
As to whether Metzenbaum had Article III standing, we think
it sufficient to observe that the line of argument set forth in the motion to
compel (and on appeal) necessitates a discussion of the possibility of a fraud,
see infra at 16-18, and that Metzenbaum, as a class member, has
standing to press such an argument because he has a concrete, particularized,
and legally protected interest in both faithful representation by class counsel
and in not being defrauded by an adverse party, cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) (recognizing "fraud . . . misrepresentation, or
other misconduct of an adverse party" as a basis for seeking relief from
judgment). As to the potentially difficult issues of Metzenbaum's
"party" status and right to intervention in order to obtain
discovery, we think they are extinguished for purposes of this case by our
answer to a narrower, logically antecedent question: Must a district court
scrutinize and approve as fair an appellate side settlement between the parties
who have reached a court-approved settlement of a class action and separately
represented class members who had objected to the settlement prior to its
approval? Metzenbaum contends that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and/or general class action
principles derived from the case law give class members like himself an
interest in such scrutiny and approval. But as we explain below, Metzenbaum
reads the authority he cites too broadly. Where, as here, the class settlement
is unaffected by the side settlement and there has been no demonstration of a
fraud, absent class members like Metzenbaum simply have no unconditional right
to have a court review and approve as fair the terms of such a side settlement.
We start with Metzenbaum's contention that Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e) explicitly requires court approval of the side settlement. Assuming arguendo that the Rule somehow applies
post-judgment to the compromise of an appeal from a district court's approval
of a class-action settlement, but see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
("These rules govern the procedure in the
Metzenbaum also argues that general class action principles
support his proposed disclosure and approval requirement. In support of his
position, Metzenbaum cites a number of complex litigation cases in which, even
though Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) did not strictly apply,
courts either have required court scrutiny of or actually scrutinized
agreements peripheral to the class action. Unlike the just-mentioned In re
General Motors Corp. and In re Shell Oil Refinery cases (where,
despite the inapplicability of Rule 23(e), courts scrutinized side settlements
with absent class members to ensure that those class members made informed
settlement decisions), the cases Metzenbaum cites all involved circumstances in
which there were systemic incentives for class counsel or the named class
plaintiffs to act in disregard of fiduciary duties owed to absent class members
in concluding these peripheral agreements.
For example, noting "the danger that the lawyers might
urge a class settlement at a low figure or on a less-than-optimal basis in
exchange for red-carpet treatment on fees," Weinberger v. Great
Northern Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d 518, 524 (1st Cir. 1991), we
have directed district courts to exercise their equitable jurisdiction to
review counsel-fee arrangements negotiated in connection with class-action
settlements -- even where the counsel fees are not taken from a common fund but
are instead paid separately by a class-action defendant, see id. at 523-25. Similarly, courts in two recent mass-tort
settlements appear to have required approval of settlements struck between
clients of class counsel who were not members of a class and a party opposing
the class. See Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 157 F.R.D.
246, 294-99, 307-10 (E.D. Pa. 1994), rev'd on other grounds,
83 F.3d 610, 622 (3d Cir. 1996), aff'd 521 U.S. 59 (1997); In re
Asbestos Litig., 90 F.3d 963, 978-80 (5th Cir. 1996), cert.
granted and judgment vacated on other
grounds, 117
But we see no inherent risk of victimization of the
uninformed, convergence of interests of putative adversaries, or conflict of
interests between or among those to whom fiduciary duties are owed, in an
appellate side settlement of the type Metzenbaum challenges. Tellingly,
Metzenbaum does not explain how a party to or attorney involved in such an
appellate side settlement might be tempted to act in derogation of a fiduciary
duty. This of course means that Metzenbaum has not specified how class counsel
-- the only persons potentially involved in the side settlement with fiduciary duties
to absent class members like himself -- faced
systemically generated incentives to violate such a duty in compromising the
Rose Objectors' appeal. Instead, Metzenbaum derives from the cases just
described a broader principle: a generalized concern on the part of courts that
"similarly-situated class members [be] treated similarly and that monies
paid by the defendants for purposes of settlement inure to the benefit of all
class members." Appellant's Brief at 16; see also id.
at 17, 19, and 23. Using this principle as his point
of departure, Metzenbaum argues that the injury he suffered is his alleged
unequal treatment (in terms of settlement results) vis-a-vis the Rose
Objectors.
Metzenbaum's statement of the applicable principle is sound
insofar as it implies that courts are concerned with adequate and similar
results for all similarly situated class members in a class
action settlement. See, e.g., In
re General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d at 808 ("One sign that a settlement
may not be fair is that some segments of the class are treated differently from
others."). Yet this is only because different recoveries for
similarly harmed persons who have remained within the class and are represented
by class counsel (or high attorney-fee awards negotiated in connection with
paltry class settlements) can constitute powerful evidence that a
fiduciary obligation has not been honored.
See In re General Motors Corp., 594 F.2d at 1139 ("Rule
23(e) requires judicial approval of class action settlements to guard against
possible ineffective representation of absentees' interests by the
representative parties."); see also, e.g., In re
General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d at 809 (courts should "withhold approval
from any settlement that creates conflicts among the class"); Weinberger,
925 F.2d at 524-25 (discussing oversight of attorney-fee agreements as
necessary to prevent class-harming conflicts of interest between the plaintiff
class and class counsel); 7B Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §
1797, at 340-41 (discussing oversight of settlements involving representative
parties as necessary to ensure that the representative parties had not become
fainthearted or settled solely out of self-interest). But to the extent that
Metzenbaum reads cases like Weinberger, Georgine, In re
Asbestos, and
We simply have no tradition of court intervention to ensure
that similarly victimized plaintiffs who have retained separate counsel and
have made different litigation decisions get similar results. Cf., e.g.,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) (requiring that notice to the
class explicitly inform class members that they may opt out of the class
action). Similarly harmed plaintiffs often secure separate representation and
subsequently enter into materially different settlements with a common
defendant. In such situations, the settling parties have no legally protected
interest in having a court scrutinize each settlement to ensure that all
plaintiffs receive similar consideration for their releases. A fundamental
assumption of our adversary system is that adversaries represented by persons
with presumably undivided loyalties will tend to negotiate acceptably fair
resolutions of their disputes. As we have implied, courts oversee class-action
settlements only because factors unique to the class-action context -- the already-noted
tendency towards a coincidence of interests between class representatives and
the party opposing the class, and the chasm between representatives and
faceless, absent class members -- call into question whether the
representatives' loyalties are in fact undivided.
We come then to the basic question: Are Metzenbaum and the
Rose Objectors so "similarly situated" that we should view any
difference in their ultimate recoveries as evidence of a systemically induced
breach of a fiduciary duty owed to Metzenbaum and absent class members? We
think the answer clearly is "no." Although Metzenbaum and the Rose
Objectors are members of the same class and originally were represented by the
same class counsel, they eventually secured separate representation through
which they took decidedly different positions with respect to the proposed
settlement and opposite positions with respect to the final judgment. So long
as there was no fraud, that the Rose Objectors might have obtained something in
return for eventually dropping their efforts to disrupt the settlement
constitutes no cognizable injury to Metzenbaum, who has received or will
receive the full benefit of the bargain to which he acquiesced and which the
district court deemed fair under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
In his appellate brief, Metzenbaum hints at but does not
fully develop two additional rationales for court intervention which might be
taken as alternatives to his similar-results-for-the-similarly-harmed argument.
The first is that courts should intervene to prevent possible extortion; the
second is that courts should intervene to prevent possible fraud. Before we
conclude, we believe it important to say a few words about each of these two
arguments.
The Rose Objectors had little to lose in pressing their
appeal. If they had lost, they would have remained entitled to the relief
secured by the class. If they had won, they almost certainly would have brought
about a more favorable settlement for the class. See 2 Newberg on
Class Actions § 11.14, at 11-18 ("In general, after a class is
certified, particularly in a class action for damages, there is a great
likelihood of settlement before trial because of the increased assessment by
defense counsel of exposure to substantial liability."). In the class-action
context, such little-to-lose situations sometimes cause concern because they
raise the specter of extortive legal proceedings pressed "not to redress
real wrongs, but to realize upon their nuisance value." Cohen v. Beneficial
Loan Corp., 337
We think that this line of argument is answered by what we
already have stated. Courts examine the fairness of certain class-related
settlements because it is thought that, fiduciary obligations notwithstanding,
circumstances unique to the complex litigation context sometimes tempt class
counsel and/or named class plaintiffs to conclude settlements that are not in
the best interests of absent class members. In these situations, courts assess
whether the settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate, see, e.g.,
In re General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d at 804-19, because fair settlements
can more confidently be regarded as having been negotiated in compliance with
the class representatives' fiduciary duties. But so long as the class
settlement remains unaffected, nothing about the settlement of an extortionate
appeal by separately represented, objecting, absent class members logically
calls into question whether the class has been faithfully served
by its representatives. Such a settlement thus would not give a class member
the right to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and its related doctrines as a means
of creating a bigger settlement pie post-judgment, at least under the rationale
alluded to here. Of course, matters could be different if there were some
indication that the side settlement of an appeal was a vehicle for implementing
or furthering a fraud. Unlike an appellate side settlement which at the very
most merely hints that the class might have been able to obtain more in the
class settlement, a fraud-masking appellate settlement should be understood to
involve affirmative deceit upon the class or court -- e.g., use of the
recipient of the appellate settlement as a payment conduit between the party
opposing the class and class counsel in an end run around a lower court's
counsel-fees ruling. Seizing on the many cases which mention the prevention of
"collusion" between class counsel or class representatives and the
party opposing the class as a justification for court scrutiny of class-action
settlements and peripheral agreements negotiated in connection with
class-action settlements, see, e.g., In re General Motors
Corp., 55 F.3d at 805; Weinberger, 925 F.2d at 924-25; Georgine,
157 F.R.D. at 311, Metzenbaum appears to suggest that appellate side
settlements of the sort we consider should be subject to scrutiny and approval
as a means of detecting whether they are masking a fraud.
But after final judgment has entered, our strong interest
in the finality of judgments leads courts to intervene in a search for evidence
of fraud only if there has been some showing that a fraud actually has
occurred. See H.K. Porter Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co., 536 F.2d 1115, 1118-22 (6th Cir. 1976) (discovery in aid of
a motion attacking a final judgment on the basis of fraud should be permitted
only if there is some evidence of fraud); see also Midwest
Franchise Corp. v. Metromedia Restaurant Group, Inc., 177 F.R.D.
438, 440 (N.D. Iowa 1997) (prima facie showing of fraud required); United
States ex rel. Free v. Peters, 826 F. Supp. 1153, 1154 (N.D. Ill.
1993) (same). Plainly, there has been no such showing here. In making this
point, we emphasize that a court's obligation to scrutinize class-action
settlements and some agreements peripheral to class-action settlements for
evidence of collusion, see, e.g., In re General Motors Corp.,
55 F.3d at 805; Weinberger, 925 F.2d at 924-25, does not in some way
trump the systemic interest in finality of judgments -- an interest that might
be thought particularly strong in the class-action context, see Valerio
v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 647 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (finality
considerations are "even more pressing in the class action context"
because of the number of people the final judgment affects). Thus, it does not
open the door to post-judgment discovery where there is nothing more than
speculation that a fraud might have occurred.
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.
Copyright © 1998 by The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc.,