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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CCAF attorney Theodore H. Frank won an appellate victory granting him intervention against the filers of strike suits that harm shareholder. Here, plaintiffs convinced Akorn to pay $322,500 in attorneys’ fees, although no benefit has accrued to the class—only immaterial supplemental disclosures.
CCAF objects to settlement in antitrust price-fixing case which includes a nationwide class indirect purchasers of lithium ion batteries in a variety of electronic equipment. Only about 26 states provide a cause of action for such indirect purchasers, however, so recovery to those class members will be diluted by payments to claimants without meritorious claims.
The Center for Class Action Fairness is challenging the legality of a class action settlement with Google that provides millions of dollars to the attorneys, and zero dollars to the class. Class members, who waive all rights to damages under the settlement, receive the same benefit whether or not they opt out.
Thanks to the Center’s objection, the parties negotiated a new settlement providing the class with more than $3 million additional recovery.
,_N401WN_-_LAX_(24891087549).jpg){kind=link}