On August 4, 2015, in Oetting v. Norton, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a lead plaintiff in a previously-settled securities fraud class action lacked personal standing to bring a separate class action against class counsel for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty because he alleged no injury other than a loss to his share of the settlement fund, which became nullified when he did not cash his settlement checks (No. 14–2380, (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2015)).

David Oetting was named a lead plaintiff and the law firm Green Jacobson was named lead counsel in a class action alleging federal securities laws violations. After a $333 million settlement and on Green Jacobson's recommendation, the district court appointed Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP (Heffler) as claims administrator to distribute the settlement funds. During the claims process, an employee of Heffler conspired to submit fifteen false claims against the fund, which resulted in $5.87 million being paid out that would have otherwise been paid to class members.

Oetting filed a separate class action against Green Jacobson, alleging that it committed legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty based in part on the recommendation that the court appoint Heffler as claims administrator. Green Jacobson moved to dismiss, arguing that Oetting lacked Article III standing to assert negligence and malpractice damage claims because he never cashed his settlement checks, and therefore was not injured by the fact that those checks were slightly smaller than they would have been had Green Jacobson hired a different claims administrator. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Oetting appealed.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, noting the unusual questions of standing presented by the class action section. It found that Oetting lacked standing for a personal claim for a share of any money recovered from Green Jacobson because:

Turning to examine whether the class itself had standing to pursue the claims, the Eighth Circuit held that Oetting's status as class representative of the class certified in the main action did not, without more, provide either Oetting or the class itself with standing to maintain any of the claims asserted in the separate class action against counsel. The court noted that Oetting could have commenced the separate action on behalf of the entire class by seeking to invoke the district court's ancillary jurisdiction in the main action. However, the court held that Oetting's duty to represent the class in the main action did not automatically give him Article III standing to assert claims against different parties in a new action, and that he should have moved to certify the new class in response to Green Jacobson's motion to dismiss.