Author: admin

This author has written 389 articles

Appeals Court Kicks Back Apple Power Adapter Class-Action Settlement

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."

Appeals Court Kicks Back Apple Power Adapter Class-Action Settlement
Image credit: Jeremy Keith

Ninth Circuit Chucks Apple MagSafe Settlement, Chides Judge’s Oversight

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.

Ninth Circuit Chucks Apple MagSafe Settlement, Chides Judge’s Oversight

Berry v. LexisNexis

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.

<em>Berry v. LexisNexis</em>

Poertner v. Gillette Co.

CCAF objected in Poertner v. Gillette Co., a settlement of consumer fraud claims over Duracell batteries where the attorneys received $5.7 million and the class only $0.3 million, and appealed it to the Supreme Court, which unfortunately declined to review the case. CCAF’s objection, however, led class counsel to admit that the vast majority of consumer fraud settlements leave more than 99% of class members uncompensated.

<em>Poertner v. Gillette Co.</em>
Image credit: Anton Fomkin

Richardson v. L’Oreal USA

The district court sustained the Center’s objection to a settlement over shampoo labeling where the class would receive valueless injunctive relief and the attorneys sought nearly $1M for themselves.

<em>Richardson v. L’Oreal USA</em>

Lessons From CCAF On Designing Class Action Settlements

The recent decision by the Sixth Circuit, overturning approval of a class action settlement in In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2013), is another in a string of wins for the Center for Class Action Fairness, which objects to settlements it considers unjust, and another reminder to class action defendants that they have to bear objections in mind when negotiating settlements.

Lessons From CCAF On Designing Class Action Settlements

Appeals Court Says Legal Fees in Diaper Suit are Ir-rashional

That settlement was challenged by the Center for Class Action Fairness, a Washington nonprofit that challenges class-action settlements it views to be unfair. “When attorneys get more than the class is getting, it’s an unfair settlement,” said Ted Frank, the organization’s founder. “The class counsel owes an obligation to its clients to get a good deal for them before it gets paid.”

Appeals Court Says Legal Fees in Diaper Suit are Ir-rashional
Search this website Type then hit enter to search