Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow

Changes needed
I have a few changes to suggest on behalf of Labaton, with whom I have a Conflict of Interest, and I would really appreciate a review of to ensure they meet community standards. I have tried to provide reasoning as I go to break up the text and make it easier to navigate, but please let me know if you have any questions on any aspects of this request. I have used the TextDiff and Box Templates to indicate the changes and in-sentence locations of reference material.

1.
As of January this year, the firm name used is Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, and the number of attorneys has increased to 70, so I propose amending the first paragraph accordingly (and also the infobox):


 * I renamed the article but the lawyer headcount seems to be sourced from a user-submitted directory. We need a more reliable source for the new headcount number. STEM info  (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

2.
The History section includes notable cases throughout, so I suggest renaming this section "History and notable cases" so this is apparent. I would also like to suggest the following updates:

2.1
Reasoning:
 * This major expansion is sensible to include in the History of the firm.
 * The 2014 New York Times article cited does not make any reference to Labaton so the statement quoted is inappropriate to include.
 * The ISS rankings are a useful way to assess the key plaintiff firms.
 * I added the expansion. I removed the statement attributed to the NY Times since you are correct and Labaton isn't mentioned. I changed your requested date range "2018 to 2022" to "2019 to 2022" since the source for 2018 is a PDF stored on the Squarespace web hosting platform, and is therefore unreliable. It could be Photoshopped. STEM info  (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

2.2
Reasoning:
 * Missing update on Key person change
 * Missing notable cases
 * Further detail on notable cases
 * The source says Keller was there since 2020, so I changed it from 2019. Putting in the info about the investigation following the $300M settlement is confusing and repetitive. We need to address the previous content to make it concise. I added the SCANA and Facebook info.  There was no source for the official name of the Facebook case that you included in your request (In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation), so I added one. I didn't add the info about the resolution of the Sillam Saulnier case.  The French source is paywalled, so someone else is going to have to confirm the details. Lastly, I thought about making a Notable cases section separate from History, but can't easily figure out how to extract the $300M judgement the firm won from State Street from the penalty the firm received for not disclosing the finders fee the firm paid for the case.  STEM info  (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

2.3
Reasoning
 * Clarifying nature of role in securing record settlement
 * Missing notable cases after 2022
 * The source I found that I could read said the settlement was "one of the largest cash settlements in Delaware Chancery Court history on behalf of shareholders", so I added the info with a qualifier. Added the Allstate and Alexion info, but the firm is not named in the Guess source you provided. I've done all I can with this request, but leaving it open in case others can fill in the gaps.  STEM info  (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing these! The Comfiest (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @STEMinfo Thank you for your thorough response. It means a lot that you engaged with the material whole-heartedly! I will revisit the content of the section you deemed needed to be clearer and more concise. I'll hold out for now on closing the request until that wording is done and on the off-chance any Gotham City readers are able to verify the content of the article I linked in 2.2. The Comfiest (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Closing out previously finished request. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)