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.

In re Novo Nordisk Sec. Litig.

HLLI represented an objector challenging the fairness of a class action settlement that pays a third of the $100 million gross settlement fund to attorneys, instead of the customary 25%.

Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier

HLLI successfully represented a chocolate consumer who objected to a largely-illusory settlement involving Godiva Chocolatier. The settlement would have paid class members like Lehrer conditionally at most $7 million. In contrast, plaintiffs' attorneys negotiated a fixed $5 million fund earmarked for their own fees.

Search this website Type then hit enter to search