Alison Frankel covers ($) the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s recent win in its appeal of the Lithium batteries antitrust settlement, which would pay class member claimants in repealer and non-repealer states equally, even though non-repealer claimants would have no cause of action to recover:
The ruling came less than three weeks after oral argument in the appeal, which was brought by class action watchdog Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute on behalf of class member Frank Bednarz. (Bednarz is also a lawyer at Frank’s shop.) Bednarz’s brief to the 9th Circuit noted that Judge Rogers was well aware of the key difference between class members from repealer and non-repealer states: Before approving the $44.5 million settlements, Bednarz said, she had refused to certify a nationwide class of indirect purchasers based on that very distinction. According to Monday’s 9th Circuit opinion, she also recently approved another set of settlements in the lithium ion battery case in which distributions specifically accounted for the differences between class members in repealer and non-repealer states. The appeals court said that acknowledgment “magnified” its concerns with the judge’s approval of a pro rata distribution in the settlement before the 9th Circuit.
Frank said in an email that the problem with Judge Rogers’ previous ruling was not that the judge didn’t explain her reasoning but that her reasoning “was just legally wrong.” He said he’s waiting to see what plaintiffs’ lawyers from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein – who defended the lithium ion settlements at the 9th Circuit – do next. “We’re still evaluating our options,” he said. “It would be odd to move for rehearing of a decision I just won. Then again, I’ve been known to be odd.”