Judge orders Boston law firm to repay millions in inflated legal fees
“We’re gratified that the court recognized the problems we identified and went beyond the special master’s proposal to return millions of dollars to class members," said Frank.
In re Google LLC Street View Electronic Communications Litigation
Much like the Google referrer case that CCAF argued before the Supreme Court, plaintiffs' attorneys have achieved a settlement worth a fraction of pennies-on-the-dollar, then argued that the modest recovery excuses them from actually having to benefit class members. Class member David Lowery objects.
Photo credit: Padaguan/Wikipedia
Class action watchdog Ted Frank files objection to Equifax deal
The most promising of those arguments seems to me to be CCAF’s assertion that Equifax and class counsel failed to acknowledge and address potential conflicts among class members. The brief uses Frank and Watkins, the named objectors, to illustrate that point. In Watkins’ home state of Utah, he might be entitled to statutory damages of as much as $2,000 in claims arising from the Equifax breach. Frank, who lived in Washington, could have claimed statutory damages of $1,500. But New Yorkers in the Equifax class would be permitted only $50 for claims under New York general business law.
Class Action Critic Ted Frank Objects to $1.4B Equifax Data Breach Settlement
The fee request is the highest of any data breach settlement, with fee awards approved in similar cases against Anthem and Yahoo totaling $31 million and $30 million, respectively. In those data breach cases, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California questioned the amount of billing and the number of law firms involved. Those same problems exist in the Equifax settlement, Frank said.
In re Equifax Inc. Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation
The Center for Class Action Fairness objected on behalf of two class members to the infamous Equifax data breach class action settlement. The settlement is rooted in a fundamental failure to adequately represent the class.
‘Mootness Fees’ Are Beyond Court’s Purview, 7th Circ. Hears
Frank has also argued for sanctions against the law firms and an injunction barring them from securing attorneys fees without court approval. He said he can’t afford to intervene in each of the many dozens of cases that are resolved with mootness fees. “It’s not enough to have this whack-a-mole game that will not deter the behavior,” he told Law360.
9th Circuit: Trial judge must rethink nationwide indirect purchasers’ class deal
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."
9th Circ. Judge Sees ‘Obvious Error’ In $45M Battery Deals
All three judges sitting on the panel expressed doubts about the settlements' approval. Aside from Judge Bybee’s comments, U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the judge’s order approving the settlements was “conclusory,” and Judge McKeown expressed concerns that Judge Gonzalez Rogers didn’t explain her reasoning for finding that the deals were fair.
What’s Next: … A Federal Judge Wants to Talk About Attorneys Fees
With that kind of markup, Tigar said the use of contract lawyers could be considered a profit-seeking scheme. Heimann argued that the work and the overhead costs for staff and contract employees are the same in regard to training, supervision and providing workspaces. Tigar said the law firm wouldn’t contract out staff if it weren’t more profitable.
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
CCAF successfully represented Prof. Todd Henderson, who objected to a settlement that provides him $4.50 and all class members put together less than one seventh of the $6.85 million attorneys' fee request, premised on a “$27 million” injunction that did nothing.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- …
- 44
- Go to the next page