In a victory for consumers, the Center for Class Action Fairness successfully objected to an abusive class action settlement in a case about the length of Subway’s “footlong” sandwiches. The proposed settlement benefitted only nine people in the class but awarded more than half a million dollars to the class attorneys.
Today, the CCAF filed a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court asking for review of a class action lawsuit settlement in Poertner v. The Gillette Co. The original case centered on a lawsuit over dubious advertising claims made about Duracell batteries. Class counsel structured a settlement that paid themselves $5.7 million, paid a small fraction of class members a total of $344,850, and left over 99 percent of the class with nothing.
CCAF attorney Anna St. John said, “If awarded in full, the excessive fee requested by class counsel would transfer to plaintiffs’ attorneys tens of millions of dollars that rightfully belong to class members. It’s an all-too-common example of attorneys purporting to represent consumers harmed by unlawful business practices, when in reality these attorneys try to harm those same consumers again by seeking far more than they are entitled to by law.”
Class counsel sought 30% in fees -- over $45 million -- from the $150 million mega-fund and justifies the request with a lodestar that is both inadequately supported and based on numerous forms of over-billing. The district court reduced the excessive fee request by $9 million.
CCAF challenged strike suit that provided meaningless disclosures, prompting Seventh Circuit to adopt “plainly material” standard in order to approve such settlements. “Strike suits affect over 97 percent of mergers, costing businesses millions. We hope other courts follow Delaware and the Seventh Circuit in taking steps to shut down this racket.”
CCAF is concerned the Judicial Panel will not consider judicial track records in scrutinizing the fairness of settlements when deciding who to transfer the case to.
CCAF objected to the settlement that would pay class counsel $2 million and would leave the class members with nothing but valueless labeling changes on a product defendant was no longer selling.
The terms of the deal provided a $10 million fund to class members that, in reality, is unlikely to be exhausted, gave class counsel a disproportionate $6.75 million fee, and left a large subclass of class members with zero recovery.
The Ninth Circuit declined to find that an intraclass conflicts that preclude a finding of adequate representation. That said, the district court reduced class counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses by over $5.1 million, for the benefit of the class.
In a false advertising case, the Center objected to the settlement that gave class counsel $4.75M because it was based on an exaggerated value ($18.5M) of unidentified labeling changes. The district court approved the settlement, but reduced the fee request by $1.2M. The Center did not appeal.
