[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-282215-105":53,"doc-detail-282215-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","competitive-enterprise-institutes-center-for-class-action-fairness-memorandum-in-response-to-proposed-partial-resolution","Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness - Memorandum in Response to Proposed Partial Resolution","","Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness responds to memoranda supporting a Proposed Partial Resolution submitted for the court’s consideration. The filing argues that appointment of a guardian ad litem remains necessary to protect the class, because the Proposed Resolution does not provide global peace and does not adequately address unresolved issues impacting remedy fairness. It contends the Proposed Resolution misallocates responsibility for double-counting and investigation costs, and urges that it cannot be approved at this stage.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/competitive-enterprise-institutes-center-for-class-action-fairness-memorandum-in-response-to-proposed-partial-resolution/282215/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/competitive-enterprise-institutes-center-for-class-action-fairness-memorandum-in-response-to-proposed-partial-resolution/282215.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Mimi","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What action does the Proposed Resolution request from the court regarding Labaton?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The Special Master and Labaton ask the court to approve a Proposed Resolution that would permanently discharge Labaton from the case and bar other firms from seeking any portion of Labaton’s new fee award.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Why does the filing say a guardian ad litem is still necessary?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"It argues that a guardian ad litem remains necessary to protect the class and to advocate where the Report does not go far enough, particularly because the Proposed Resolution does not ensure peace against further challenges and leaves key issues unresolved.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What are the main criticisms of the Proposed Resolution?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The filing contends the Proposed Resolution misattributes responsibility for double-counting and investigation costs, channels most disgorged funds away from the class as a windfall to other counsel, and cannot be approved now because it leaves important issues from the Report unresolved.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},282215,1790431398,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":142},2336477974920,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Case 1:11-cv-10230-MLW Document 515 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 24  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS  \n\n| ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,\u003Cbr>Plaintiffs,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Defendant. |\n| --- |\n| ARNOLD HENRIQUEZ, MICHAEL T. COHN, WILLIAM R. TAYLOR, RICHARD A. SUTHERLAND, and those similarly situated,\u003Cbr>Plaintiffs,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,\u003Cbr>STATE STREET GLOBAL MARKETS, LLC and DOES 1-20,\u003Cbr>Defendants. |\n| THE ANDOVER COMPANIES EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN, on behalf of itself, and JAMES PEHOUSHEK-STANGELAND, and all others similarly situated,\u003Cbr>Plaintiffs,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,\u003Cbr>Defendant. |\n\nNo. 11-cv-10230 MLW  \nNo. 11-cv-12049 MLW  \nNo. 12-cv-11698 MLW  \nTHE COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE’S CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PARTIAL RESOLUTION WITH LABATON  \nCase 1:11-cv-10230-MLW Document 515 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 24  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................3  \nARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................4  \nI. The Proposed Resolution highlights the need for a guardian ad litem..........................................4  \nA. The primary beneficiary of Proposed Resolution is ERISA counsel..............................7  \nB. The Proposed Resolution inappropriately regards Labaton as one-third responsible for the double-counting.................................................................................... 8  \nC. Labaton is also disproportionally responsible for costs of investigation....................... 9  \nD. Structural changes by Labaton provide no relief to class in this case, and little relief to future classes........................................................................................................... 10  \nII. The Proposed Resolution also leaves key issues from the Report unresolved, and more difficult to resolve between Lieff and TLF alone..........................................................................12  \nA. Other issues not resolved by the Proposed Resolution impact the fairness of remedies proposed against Lieff and TLF........................................................................ 13  \nB. At minimum, the Proposed Resolution cannot be approved now............................... 14  \nIII. Appointment of a guardian adlitem remains necessary to advocate for issues where the Report does not go far enough in protecting the class.................................................................17  \nA. The Special Master’s Report is modest............................................................................. 18  \nB. No conflict of interest exists with the Special Master, but the class should have a dedicated advocate.............................................................................................................21  \nC. Appointment of Burch Porter as guardian adlitem would greatly enhance the process and ensure that an unconflicted advocate has standing to defend any order against Class Counsel on appeal..............................................................................22  \nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................22  \nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................24  \nCase 1:11-cv-10230-MLW Document 515 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 24  \nIn accord with the Court’s Order dated October 16, 2018 (Dkt. 494), as extended by the Court (Dkt. 502), the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness (“CCAF”) responds to the memoranda supporting the Propo","cbCaimGDWkHldFF1","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimGDWkHldFF1","pdf",225825,24,"English","# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n# ARGUMENT\n## I. The Proposed Resolution highlights the need for a guardian ad litem\n## II. The Proposed Resolution also leaves key issues from the Report unresolved\n## III. Appointment of a guardian adlitem remains necessary to advocate for issues where the Report does not go far enough in protecting the class\n# CONCLUSION\n# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","[{\"question\":\"What action does the Proposed Resolution request from the court regarding Labaton?\",\"answer\":\"The Special Master and Labaton ask the court to approve a Proposed Resolution that would permanently discharge Labaton from the case and bar other firms from seeking any portion of Labaton’s new fee award.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the filing say a guardian ad litem is still necessary?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that a guardian ad litem remains necessary to protect the class and to advocate where the Report does not go far enough, particularly because the Proposed Resolution does not ensure peace against further challenges and leaves key issues unresolved.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the main criticisms of the Proposed Resolution?\",\"answer\":\"The filing contends the Proposed Resolution misattributes responsibility for double-counting and investigation costs, channels most disgorged funds away from the class as a windfall to other counsel, and cannot be approved now because it leaves important issues from the Report unresolved.\"}]","Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness - Memorandum in Response to Proposed Partial Resolution | PDF",1789570847,8]