2023 Maui wildfires sparked an investor lawsuit against Hawaiian: The wider industry impact

2023 Maui wildfires sparked an investor lawsuit against Hawaiian: The wider industry impact

A US federal judge has approved a $47.75 million settlement in a securities lawsuit against Hawaiian Electric Industries, while significantly reducing the legal fees requested by the investors’ lawyers. The October 23 ruling by the US District Court for the Northern District of California, reported by Bloomberg Law and Law360, brings the investor class action closer to resolution nearly three years after the devastating Maui wildfires. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley approved the settlement but awarded attorneys $9.55 million, substantially below the amount sought.

According to the court’s order in Bhangal v. The decision follows scrutiny of the legal teams’ billing records and the hours claimed for their work on the case.

The claims concerned securities purchased or acquired between February 28, 2019, and September 4, 2023, covering the period leading up to the August 2023 wildfires that devastated Lahaina, Maui. The lawsuit centred on allegations that Hawaiian Electric Industries and senior company officials misled investors about the utility’s preparedness for wildfire risks. The complaint alleged that investors were given an inaccurate impression of the company’s efforts to address wildfire threats. Hawaiian Electric and the other defendants denied wrongdoing, and the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability. The case had not reached a final ruling on the merits of the allegations. The parties agreed to settle while a second motion to dismiss was pending, avoiding the uncertainty, expense and potential delays of further litigation. The securities lawsuit is separate from litigation seeking compensation for people who suffered personal injury or property losses in the Maui wildfires. The approved agreement addresses investor claims arising from alleged misrepresentations about wildfire risks, not the full range of losses caused by the disaster.

The court had previously dismissed the complaint while allowing the plaintiff to amend it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *