Utah, et al. v. Su

HLLI challenges the Department of Labor’s rule undermines key protections for retirement savings of 152 million workers in the name of promoting environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) factors in investing over the rigid duty of loyalty and prudence that plan fiduciaries owe to plan investors.

<em>Utah, </em>et al. <em>v. Su</em>
Piggy Bank

Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents an objector challenging the fairness of a settlement that pays $1.4 million to the class and over $4 million to the attorneys.

In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation

The settling attorneys argue they should be paid 38% of the $181 million settlement fund as fees and costs, which is nearly triple the percentage typically awarded in a settlement of this size. The fee request is also more than twice what one of the lead firms has bid as a percentage fee award in two other antitrust cases.

Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Theodore H. Frank objects to a class action settlement involving Neuriva-branded nutritional supplements that will pay class members perhaps one third of the $2.9 million fee request that plaintiffs’ counsel seek for themselves.

McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents an objector to the settlement of McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC, which provides only coupons to class members, including those who no longer subscribe to Massage Envy, while earmarking $3.3 million for attorneys' fees in cash.

<em>McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC</em>
Photo credit: Jour Sarah/Wikipedia
Search this website Type then hit enter to search