In Re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation, 2008 WL 2897102 (Del. Ch., July 29, 2008), read opinion here.

This case has a somewhat lengthy history procedurally. In a previous opinion last year, the court rejected a proposed class action settlement and an objector to that settlement then became the class representative. In this Chancery Court opinion the court now certifies a class over the opposition as to the “adequacy” requirement of the class representative, as well as claims that the class representative has not property monitored plaintiff’s counsel and related allegations. See prior decision at In Re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation, 938 A.2d 654 (Del. Ch., 2007), summarized here, in which the Chancery Court  explains why it rejected a proposed class action settlement as not  being sufficient for the class members.

Of course, much more can be written about this detailed and multi-faceted case. The Delaware Business Litigation Report provided the following helpful perspective on another aspect of the case:

It has long been known that some pension funds and other institutional investors use the same counsel over and over to bring their class actions. This decision recognizes that fact and holds that it is not a reason to disqualify the proposed class representative