If you listen to one oral argument from March 27, well, I have to say that you need to listen to Paul Clement's performance in HHS v. Florida. But if you have time for a second oral argument, and you have a hankering for Third Circuit class action action, I'd be curious about your thoughts of the argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen. See also. Following up on our earlier post, the Third Circuit denied the motion for…
It had been a few years since I took a deposition, so it was refreshing to see that I wasn't as rusty as I was worried I'd be.
The fundamental point—shareholder derivative suits should not be permitted to be maintained when they are designed to benefit the attorneys, rather than the shareholders—remains valid, and we believe this is the first case to present this principle in the shareholder derivative context.
In Dewey v. Volkswagen, the parties negotiated and the district court approved a settlement that violates Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, which makes reversal likely. What's a class counsel to do? Make up new precedent!
We've objected to the Apple Magsafe class action settlement, which was recently criticized by AtlanticWire. Details at Point of Law.
Details at Point of Law. Fortunately, Procter & Gamble is not my client, as they will be exceedingly unimpressed that we mortifyingly spelled their name wrong throughout the brief. At least the law is right.
See if you can spot the big math error in the HP brief before you read the reply brief.
In the Toys "R" Us baby products antitrust case, the E.D. Pa. approved a settlement and fee request that pays $14M to attorneys and $8.1M to class members over our objection. Law.com describes it as a "24% recovery for the class"; if that's accurate, that raises the question why there will be another $13 million of payments to cy pres recipients not disclosed to the class instead of to the class. Aside from the fact of…
