Napoli Kaiser Bern is a well known class action law firm that is currently said to be breaking apart with melodramatic reports of sexual escapades, lack of fidelity and general ennui.  Whether the partners will make up, or part ways, they all face some problems in the Fen-Phen litigation, as many of the clients allege that they misstated expenses, and referring attorneys claim fraud. 

In Appel-Hole v Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.  2014 NY Slip Op 33170(U)  November 21, 2014  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 105122/09  Judge: Charles E. Ramos discusses some of the pleading issues and the Judiciary Law 487 applications.

"This action arises out of the settlement of mass tort litigation known as New York Diet Drug  itigation. In the original action (Original Action) , 1 plaintiffs asserted claims of personal injury due to the ingestion of ~fen-phen" diet drugs. In November 2001, the Original Action was settled, and the settlement approved by a predecessor court, by Justice Helen Freedman. At or around this time, the concern was raised that the settlement and disbursements obtained had been  manipulated.

Shortly after approval of the settlement, P&W commenced an action against NKB alleging  misrepresentations in connection with that settlement, entitled P&W v Napoli, and bearing the index number 605388/01 (P&W Action) . This Court largely dismissed the action on the ground that P&W lacked standing to assert claims of breach of contract between the referred clients and NKB, and because it constituted a collateral attack on the settlement, which was affirmed (Parker & Waichman, 29 AD3d 396 [1st Dept 2006]). A claim for an accounting remains in the pending P&W
Action.  and misallocated by settling counsel, defendants herein, Napoli Bern & Kaiser, LLP (NKB), to clients other then those referred to by Parker & Waichman, LLP (P&W). At the time that P&W referred clients, NKB agreed to represent them and to share attorneys’ fees with P&W.

P&W alleges that NKB committed fraud to deprive it of its contractual share of attorneys’ fees, by deliberately allocating more settlement funds to its own direct clients then to comparable referred cases in order to minimize fee-splitting with P&W, and assessed bogus disbursements and expenses to the referred clients, which decreased the net settlement amount used to calculate P&W’s fees. 

The Court has reviewed the allegations contained in Exhibit A annexed to the third amended  Intervenor complaint that the intervenor defendants maintain do not meet the heightened pleading standards of CPLR 3016 (b). For instance, the third amended intervenor complaint alleges
that John Bagglio repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the settlement amount being offered via NKB, and requested that NKB renegotiate a better settlement offer. Nonetheless, in a series
of communications with John Bagglio, NKB misrepresented that he "had no case," that his case faced "serious consequences" if he did not return the release form and accept the settlement amount being offered, and that he would "get nothing" if his case went to court. NKB also allegedly misled him concerning the settlement procedure, how the settlement offer was arrived at, and falsely put him in fear of losing any potential recovery if he did not accept a lower settlement amount, which the complainant relied upon in accepting a low settlement amount. The allegations of the remaining intervenor plaintiffs which defendants maintain are insufficient contain either a greater or lesser level of detail, describing the manner in which the defendants misrepresented how each individual settlement was arrived at, and how plaintiffs were pressured into settling the
case based on terms which were false. Taking the allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs, the Court concludes that, under the circumstances,  sufficient facts are alleged to permit a fact-finder to infer that the intervenor defendants falsely represented how each settlement was arrived at and the settlement process itself. True, with respect to many of the complainants, intervenor plaintiffs have not alleged specific details of each individual intervenor defendants’ conduct. Nonetheless, the third amended intervenor complaint alleges the basic facts to establish the elements of fraud, and adequately informs the defendants of the complained-of incidents (see Eurycleia Partners, L.P., Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). "