Judge Launches Investigation Into Law Firms’ Inflated Bills
“The judge is anticipating a real investigatory role for the special master. There’s $2 million in the pot – there’s no incentive to do a brief, perfunctory investigation.”
A federal judge is the latest to scrutinize Thornton Law
“This is very serious,” said Frank, a leading national critic of legal fees in class-action lawsuits. “The judge is anticipating a real investigatory role for the special master.”
Eighth Circuit reverses, remands $10 million settlement in Target data breach class action
“Over 99 percent of the Target data breach class gets nothing in this multi-million-dollar settlement, so we are glad that the Eighth Circuit recognizes that the district court cannot rubber-stamp settlements where class counsel cuts corners on procedural fairness so they can get paid quickly and generously,” said Melissa Holyoak, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness.
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street
A double billing error discovered by the Boston Globe and Ted Frank evolves into one of the most in-depth inquiries into securities suit billing. An appointed special master discovered undisclosed payment to attorneys who did no work in case, but plaintiffs' counsel tries to retain their $75 million fee. HLLI successfully argued for a reduced fee and defended the fee award on appeal as an amicus.
CCAF Objects to Metropolitan Museum of Art Class Action Settlement
Class member and Center for Class Action Fairness attorney Anna St. John objected to the settlement approval, class certification, and request for attorneys' fees in Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art on January 27, 2017. The original case claims that the Museum's "pay what you wish" admission policy deceived the public in violation of state law. The proposed settlement provides class members with near-worthless injunctive relief, primarily in the form of changes…
Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
The class attorneys sought fees of $350,000, and the proposed settlement suffered from the further defect that the proposed relief benefits only future museum visitors, while the class is defined to include only past visitors—many of whom will not visit the museum in the future and therefore will not recover even nominal value from the proposed policy changes. Unfortunately, the settlement was approved over CCAF objection.
Google Pays $5.5M To No One: Cy Pres Problems & Expert Cures
The National Law Review reports on the Center for Class Action Fairness's objection to a Google class action settlement. Class members claim Google used computer code to circumvent privacy settings, allowing advertisers and third parties to track their cookies and browsing activities. In settlement, Google offered to pay $5.5 million to a handful of internet technology and privacy rights institutions for internet privacy research. Class counsel agreed. With all advocates on…
CCAF Objects to Shareholder Suit Settlement, Invokes Walgreen Decision
CCAF is appealing the approval of the settlement of a shareholder suit in which the plaintiffs' attorneys received $575,000, while the shareholders recovered only immaterial supplemental disclosures.
Public-interest firm calls $5.5 million settlement with Google over privacy settings ‘unacceptable’
The center argues in its filing that class members “will see not one penny.” “This settlement exemplifies the problem of class action attorneys behaving as if they have no clients other than the general public,” Adam Schulman said in a statement. “It is unacceptable to propose a settlement that waives class members’ rights yet provides them absolutely nothing in return.”
Boston Globe Exposes Cost Inflating Class-Action Attorneys
“This happens all the time,” said Frank. “Lawyers pad their bills with overstated hourly work to make their fee request seem less of a windfall.”
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- …
- 39
- Go to the next page