Lundy v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute successfully represented an objector challenging a proposed settlement to the extent the court exercises the option to divert all or part of the $37 million fund to third parties rather than to the class.

Sharpe v. A&W Concentrate Co.

HLLI represents its director, Theodore H. Frank, in objecting to a purported “$15 million settlement” that in fact delivers perhaps $2 million to class members, and earmarks $3.2 million for attorneys’ fees.

<em>Sharpe v. A&W Concentrate Co.</em>
Image Credit: Jorge Franganillo

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

Couris v. Lawson et al.

HLLI filed suit on behalf of Doctors Michael Couris and Michael Fitzgibbons challenging a California state law that restricts doctors’ First Amendment free speech rights by threatening disciplinary action against their license for discussing with patients anything about COVID-19 that the State views as “misinformation.”

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 Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation

HLLI successfully represented an objector to a class action settlement where requested attorneys’ fees and expenses equaled to more than 33% of the settlement fund. Worse, the primary settlement relief is fraud insurance services for events that occurred 3-6 years ago, offered to a class where over 90% of the members already have had related services made available to them in other data breach settlements.

Search this website Type then hit enter to search