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 Johnson & Johnson Sunscreen Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Theodore H. Frank filed an objection to coupon settlement that will provide $5 vouchers to class members who allegedly purchased sunscreens with excessive carcinogenic benzene, while providing attorneys with $2.6 million in fees that defendants have agreed not to oppose.
Stock v. Gray et al. [Missouri Board of Pharmacy]
HLLI filed suit on behalf of a pharmacist who challenges a new Missouri law that would prevent pharmacists in the state from communicating with physicians or patients to dispute the effectiveness of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for human use as a COVID-19 treatment.
![<em>Stock v. Gray</em> et al. [Missouri Board of Pharmacy]](https://hlli.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/OSU-Pharmacist-768x614.jpg)
In re Wawa, Inc. Data Security
Theodore H. Frank filed an objection to a class action settlement over a data breach of Wawa customer data, which would pay attorneys more than the class members they represent.
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.
Rael v. The Children’s Place, Inc.
HLLI attorney Anna St. John objected to a settlement with The Children’s Place because it would pay attorneys over $1 million in fees while leaving class members with only small $6 coupons that few class members will use.
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.
Photo credit: Jour Sarah/Wikipedia
In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation
CCAF attorneys object to settlements with two airlines because the settlements do not explain how class members will be compensated, and the money might be diverted to third party cy pres beneficiaries.
,_N401WN_-_LAX_(24891087549).jpg){kind=link}
Frank v. Gaos
Class members and CCAF attorneys Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak take their objection to Google search settlement to the Supreme Court. The settlement provided $0 to class members, but divided $8.5 million between the plaintiffs’ lawyers and third party cy pres recipients.
