Just a few short months ago, Grant & Eisenhofer and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd were celebrating their huge win in a shareholder challenge to the private equity-led buyout of Del Monte. Together, the two plaintiffs' firms won a $90 million settlement for shareholders, after digging up evidence that Del Monte's financial adviser, Barclays, was simultaneously advising (and receiving fees) from the buyout group. In addition to basking together in the praise of Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of Delaware Chancery Court, G&E and Robbins Geller were awarded $22.3 million in attorneys' fees in the Del Monte win.

But from the fight for control of the Diamond Foods securities class action, you would not know that these two firms had ever nodded hello, let alone coordinated on a landmark victory for shareholders.

A month ago, I told you that Robbins Geller, which represents the New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension funds, was making noises about the frequent lead plaintiff appointments of G&E's client, the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System. (Chitwood Harley Harnes and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein are also counsel to MissPERS.) The Mississippi fund has seven times the Diamond losses of the New England Carpenters. But the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act sets a limit on the number of times any plaintiff can be appointed to lead a securities class action in a set time period. Robbins Geller argued that MissPERS is becoming a professional plaintiff, and under 9th Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, may not be appointed in the Diamond case.

At a March 1 hearing before U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Franscisco federal court, James Sabella of G&E said MissPERS's experience should weigh in the fund's favor, in contrast to the relative inexperience of Robbins Geller's client. "Mississippi has had multiple cases, yet, they have achieved settlements of $100 million, $200 million, $300 million in cases during this period," Sabella said, according to this transcript. "By contrast, I would suggest to your honor, New England Carpenters list in their certification or their answer to the questionnaire two cases. They settled one for $9 million and one for $12 million. They've virtually no experience in the magnitude of the case that we're involved with here."

Alsup nonetheless seemed focused on whether the Mississippi fund could give the case sufficient attention, despite assurances by the state AG's office that it has a team of lawyers dedicated to securities litigation. Alsup also queried Sabella about the fee deal Mississippi was demanding.

"What do you think about my views that if Mississippi PERS is selected, that Mississippi PERS ought to interview various law firms, take into account their track records and get the overall best deal for the class rather than just go with whoever happens to be representing them now?" he asked Sabella. "I suspect that's what Mississippi would do," the G&E lawyer replied, noting that in contrast to his client, which has engaged in settlements in which its lawyers have received less than 20 percent of the class recovery, the New England fund cases have typically included 25 percent fees.

Last week, matters took an uglier turn. Grant & Eisenhofer submitted a notice to Alsup, attaching a recent opinion from U.S. Senior District Judge Justin Quackenbush of the Eastern District of Washington. Quackenbush, who was presiding over a securities class action against Ambassadors Group, was severely critical of Robbins Geller's request for reimbursement of expenses in the case, noting several instances in which the firm seemed to overcharge the class. The judge said he would take that into account in determining fees -- and also said he's considering sanctions against the firm. (He gave Robbins Geller until March 19 to file a response.)

Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller said in an email that Grant & Eisenhofer passed the Quackenbush opinion to Alsup "because they are desperate." Robbins Geller, he said, refrained from telling the judge about a suit against G&E by a member of the class that settled a $3.2 billion case against Tyco. The suit, as this Forbes story explains, claims that Grant & Eisenhofer and its client, the Louisiana pension fund that led the Tyco case, ignored a deal that would have limited G&E's fees to almost $200 million less than what the firm was awarded; G&E has questioned the motivation of the lawyer who filed the suit, a former G&E employee, and said it did nothing improper.

Sabella declined comment. Alsup has not said when he intends to appoint a lead plaintiff.

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)