"The big question was this: Why should money belonging to the class members be given to a charity — no matter how much the judge and the class-action lawyers like the charity? The judge in this instance is U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson. The lawyers are from the firm of Green Jacobson."
The judge presiding over a Hewlett-Packard shareholder suit has balked at the $48 million in fees negotiated by attorneys in a settlement. The amount of money that shareholders were going to get was not negligible, unlike some of the consumer suits where the victims get a coupon good for more product from the company they've accused of doing them wrong. But the judge seems to think that it's disproportionally small compared with what the lawyers were getting.
Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, representing the objectors, also fought back against HP’s claims that the objections were brought in bad faith. Frank pointed to the existence of the retainer agreement and HP’s opposition to an advantageous motion to decertify the class.
Theodore Frank, of the non-profit Center for Class Action Fairness, has filed a motion contesting the ink jet settlement, seeking to disqualify the Cotchett firm from the H-P inkjet class action settlement. “It’s just a black letter ethical violation,” Frank said in an interview.
CCAF objected to the class action settlement negotiated by the plaintiffs' lawyers because it provided $0 to class members and $8.5 million to be divided between the plaintiffs’ lawyers – who received $1000/hour on this case – and third-party cy pres recipients, including class counsel's alma maters, and several organizations that Google already supports through donations.
“Because Cotchett Pitre was lead counsel, the conflict of interest infects all of their co-counsel, none of whom bothered to notify this court of the conflict of interest, notwithstanding their affirmative obligation to do so under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure],” the motion said.
.76 percent of battery buyers filed claims to receive $3 or $6. If all of those claims turn out to be valid, McComb said in the declaration, the settlement fund will disburse $344,850 to class members. But remember: The settlement is supposed to be worth $49 million — the number on which plaintiffs lawyers have based their fee request. Even counting the $6 million in Duracell products that will be distributed to charities if the settlement is approved and the injunction against false labels the defendants agreed to, there’s an awfully big gap between the alleged value of the deal and the actual cash benefit to the class.
In a unanimous ruling, the court agreed with objector Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness that Ware -- who is now retired, so another judge will reconsider the award -- "rubber-stamped" a deal that "structured to obscure actual relief" through Apple's agreement in advance to pay the suing legal firms up to $3 million of the award in attorney's fees and $100,000 in expenses, which the court said "cannot relieve the district court of its duty to assess fully the reasonableness of the fee request."
The Center for Class Action Fairness, in its objection, noted that the settlement seemed designed to discourage consumers from actually collecting anything. While Apple had electronic records of MacBook purchasers who had replaced their power supplies and most of the procedures were online, the lawyers required their clients to submit refund forms in writing.
CCAF appealed the district court’s approval of a settlement over data marketing practices, from which class members cannot even opt out, and under which class members receive only injunctive relief that was forbidden by statute, while plaintiffs’ lawyers are awarded over $5.3M. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the settlement and the Center asked for rehearing.
