We've been at the forefront of noting the problem of abusive cy pres; originally intended as a last resort "second-best" way to benefit the class after resolution of a case where there is leftover money, too many class actions use cy pres as a first resort to exaggerate the class benefits, or to siphon some of those benefits to the class attorneys or the defendants or, shockingly, the judge. A couple of recent decisions…
Welcome to those of you who found this page after reading the Wall Street Journal profile.
This week, we objected to a $0 settlement of the Pampers Dry Max class action.
The decision contradicts (and ignores) Bluetooth, Aqua Dots, and the Class Action Fairness Act, and applied the wrong standard of law in creating an essentially irrebuttable presumption of fairness for the settlement.
The Center for Class Action Fairness announced today its victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit objecting to a valueless class action settlement.
It's still unclear to me why the Third Circuit waited a year before our briefs were due from our appeal.
The objection, filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class member, underscores that the proposed Sirius XM Radio settlement would provide valueless injunctive relief to the class but $13 million to class attorneys.
The growth of the Center for Class Action Fairness can be shown just by the breadth of its activities on Monday, June 20.
As discussed at Point of Law, CCAF has filed an objection to the Babies "R" Us settlement in McDonough v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., No. 06-cv-242 (E.D. Pa.).